AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Ajit Singh (father -in -law) along with his son Surender (husband) and wife Roshni Devi (mother -in -law) were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for committing the murder of Meena, and in the alternative for the offence under Section 304 -B/34 IPC for committing the dowry death of Meena. Accused Surender jumped the interim bail granted to him during trial after recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and later on, he was declared a proclaimed offender. Accused Roshni Devi died during trial. The trial court, vide its judgment dated 28.5.2010, convicted appellant Ajit Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and vide order dated 29.5.2010, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) AGAINST the said judgment and order, the instant appeal has been filed.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, on 17.12.2007, ASI Ram Mehar (PW.5) received ruqa (Ex.PC) that one Meena wife of Surender Singh was admitted in Madaan Hospital, Panipat, with burn injuries. On receiving the said information, ASI Dharambir went to the said Hospital and moved an application (Ex.PC/1), upon which at 11.45 PM, Dr. T.R. Madaan (PW.12), made endorsement (Ex.PC/2), stating that injured Meena was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Then, on 18.12.2007, ASI Ram Mehar along with Constable Joginder reached PGIMS, Rohtak. He moved an application (Ex.PD) seeking opinion of the Doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement, upon which on the same day, at 10.00 AM, the Doctor made his endorsement declaring the injured fit to make statement. Thereafter, ASI Ram Mehar approached the Duty Magistrate, Rohtak, and moved application (Ex.PE) requesting her to record the statement of the injured. On receiving the said application, Ms. Payal Mittal, Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Rohtak, reached PGIMS, Rohtak, at 10.35 AM, and sought opinion of the Doctor regarding the fitness of the injured to make statement. The Doctor made endorsement (Ex.PJ/2) that injured Meena was fit to make statement. The Judicial Magistrate then asked the injured as to whether she wanted to make any statement, to which she replied in affirmative. Accordingly, statement (Ex.PJ/3) of injured Meena was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the Doctor made an endorsement (Ex.PJ/4) at 11.00 AM under the said statement to the effect that during the time of recording of the statement, the injured remained fit. After recording the statement, the Judicial Magistrate gave her certificate (Ex.PJ/5) that the Doctor was present whole of the time during making of the statement.