SHEELA Vs. STATE OF MP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is first bail application under section 439 of CrPC by the applicant. Crime No. 60/05 is registered against the present applicant for committing offence under sections 304-B, and 498-A/34 of IPC by P.S. Nurabad, District Morena. Applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased, who died within around 6 years of her marriage due to burn injuries.

(2.) IT is alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and all other family members of the husband including the present applicant for demand of motorcycle and a buffalo and due to torture and harassment by the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide. It is also alleged that the applicant and co-accused poured kerosene oil over the deceased and set her on fire and thus, she was killed by the accused persons. But the contention of learned counsel for applicant is that the death of the deceased is accidental and she caught fire due to fall of "Chimni" while cooking food. It is submitted that when the deceased was taken to the hospital at that time the doctor has recorded her dying declaration wherein she has disclosed that kerosene oil of Chimni had fallen on her. It is submitted by learned P.P. that no panch witness has signed this dying declaration recorded by the doctor and the doctor has not clearly mentioned his name. But learned counsel for applicant submits that if the doctor has failed to take signature of Panch witness and has not clearly mentioned his name then on this ground it cannot be presumed that the dying declaration is a concocted one. It is further submitted that the allegations that the accused persons poured kerosene oil and set the deceased on fire are not reliable. It is submitted that the only witness regarding pouring of kerosene oil is the brother of the deceased namely, Lakhan. But his statement has been recorded after around 1 and 1/2 months of the incident. It is further argued that if the witness Lakhan had really seen the accused pouring kerosene oil on the deceased, then he could have informed his parents imediately about this incident. It is submitted that had this witness informed about this incident to his father then the father of the deceased would have definitely mentioned it in his report lodged to the police. It is pertinent to note that in the dying declaration recorded by the doctor the deceased has not disclosed anything regarding demand of dowry by the present applicant. Applicant is in custody since 13.9.2005 and after investigation, challan has already been tiled. The trial and disposal of the case is likely to take time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, application is allowed.