DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The applicant-Ramesh Kumar (appellant No. 2) seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The case has been registered against Deepak Kumar (appellant No. 1), Ramesh Kumar (appellant No. 2) and Sheela Devi (appellant No. 3). Reema Rani (deceased) made a statement to the effect that she was married to Deepak Kumar (appellant No. 1) in the year 2002 and she had two children out of this wedlock. After marriage her in-laws including her husband Deepak Kumar (appellant No. 1), father-in-law Ramesh Kumar (appellant No. 2) and mother-in-law Sheela Devi (appellant No. 3) had harassed her for bringing inadequate dowry from her parents. On the date of incident i.e. 9.5.2007 at 2.30 p.m. her mother-in-law (appellant No. 3) had asked her to boil milk in the kitchen. Reema Rani tried to boil milk and her mother-in-law came in the kitchen. Diesel had already been sprinkled on the floor. She tried to light the gas stove while her mother-in-law had gone out from the kitchen. While lighting the gas stove the diesel sprinkled on the floor caught fire and her clothes also caught fire and her body was burnt. The case was initially registered for the offences under Sections 307, 498A and 120B IPC but after the death of Reema Rani on 25.6.2007 in CMC, Ludhiana offence under Section 304B IPC was added. During investigation dying declaration of Reema Rani was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana on 13.5.2007. Mrs. Ravi Inder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala appeared as PW-3 who according to the learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant No. 2 did not obtain the fitness certificate of Reema Rani to make her statement. In any case, it is submitted that Vinod Kumar, father of the deceased Reema Rani appeared as PW-1; besides, Vikas Jain brother of Reema Rani appeared as appeared as PW-2 and they did not support the prosecution case and were declared as hostile. However, the conviction is based only on the dying declaration of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased has given inconsistent dying declaration, inasmuch as, the Doctor (DW-3) deposed that when Reema Rani was admitted in Amar Hospital at 6.15 p.m. on 9.5.2007 as an alleged case of accidental burn, she stated that while trying to boil milk her clothes caught fire. Her statement that she received burns injuries while boiling milk and her clothes catching fire was recorded which was thumb marked by her. Besides, it is submitted that initially statement on the basis of which FIR was registered is also inconsistent with the statement recorded by Dr. Harish Tuli (DW-3) and that recorded by Mrs. Ravi Inder Kaur, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala (PW-3). The effect of the same is to be considered and gone into at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

(3.) As per custody certificate dated 2.3.2010 the applicant-Ramesh Kumar (appellant No. 2) has undergone imprisonment of 1 year, 7 months and 1 day as on 26.2.2010. Till date he has undergone more than 2 years of imprisonment out of the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of Sheela Devi, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 2.12.2009. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. Besides, there are arguable points.