STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PHOOL CHAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.7.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, whereby all the three accused, namely, Phool Chand (father-in-law), Satya Devi (mother-in-law) and Sarwan Lal (husband of deceased Suman Devi) have been acquitted from the charge framed against them for committing the murder of Suman Devi.

(2.) In the present appeal, the prosecution case is based upon the dying declaration made by the deceased. It has come in evidence that before her death due to burn injuries on 16.9.1998, she made three statements, one after another. Her first statement (Ex. DA) was recorded by ASI Ved Parkash (PW7) at 11.45 p.m. on 2.9.1998. The said statement was recorded by him in Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, where he went on receiving the telephonic message regarding admission of Suman Devi (deceased) in Civil Hospital, Jagadhri in burning condition. In the said statement, she stated that she was residing in village Nalagarh Majri, Jagadhri along with her husband Sarwan Lal, who was working in Ravi Emporium, Jagadhri. She was having three children, two sons and one daughter. Elder son was 13 years of age, daughter was 10 years of age and younger son was 7 years old. On the day of occurrence, her children were sitting by her side near the 'Chulah. At that time, there was cut in the electricity supply. Her younger son Sachin while sitting by her side pulled a burning wooden stick from the 'Chulah from which her clothes caught fire. Thereupon, on hearing her noise, her father-in-law came running. He threw carpet on her and extinguished the fire. In the meanwhile, her husband Sarwan Lal also returned from his work. He took her in burnt condition to Sharma Hospital. In that hospital dressing was done and treatment was given to her. Thereafter, she was referred to Civil Hospital. She stated that the said incident had taken place due to the child pulling the wooden stick from the 'Chulah and in that nobody was at fault. It has come in evidence that the said statement was recorded by ASI Ved Parkash (PW7) after obtaining the opinion (Ex.PC/1) of the doctor about the fitness of the patient to make the statement. ASI Ved Parkash read over the said statement to Suman Devi and who after admitting the same as correct thumb marked the same. It has further come in evidence that the said statement was also attested by the Medical Officer.

(3.) On the next day, i.e., 3.9.1998 at 11.15 a.m., ASI Ved Parkash (PW7) again recorded the statement (Ex. PK) of Suman Devi on the pretext that her earlier statement was given under pressure of her husband. In the second statement, she stated that on that date, i.e., 3.9.1998, she returned to her house at about 6.00 p.m. after doing the labour work. She had three children, elder son aged 13 years, younger daughter aged 10 years and youngest son aged about 6/7 years. She went to take Atta from the flour mill and after putting the Atta in her house she went outside in the field to ease herself. When she returned to her house, her father-in-law (Phool Chand), who was present in the house, asked her where she had gone. She replied that she had gone to ease herself. Thereupon, her father-in-law caught her by her hair and caused beatings to her and told her that she should go away from there. In the meanwhile, her husband returned from his job and he did not pay heed to what she told to him, and instead he started abusing her and causing beating to her. When she entered in the room, her father-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil on her clothes, which was contained in the Pipi, and put her on fire with the help of a match stick. When she started crying due to burning, her husband threw water on her. Her mother-in-law was also present in the house, but she did not help her in rescuing. The occurrence had been caused by her father-in-law Phool Chand and her husband Sarwan Lal with intention to kill her by sprinkling kerosene oil on her and putting her on fire. She also stated that she had earlier made a statement under threat and pressure of her husband and father-in-law. Therefore, the second statement be considered as her correct statement, which had been given in senses to ASI Ved Parkash (PW7).