SURINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Surinder @ Sundri son of Sohan Lal, is before us in an appeal, challenging judgment dated 19.02.2002, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and order dated 20.02.2002, sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default whereof, to further undergo RI for two years. The case, as set up by the prosecution, is that on 15.10.2000, a ruqa accompanied by a copy of the MLR of Vccran Devi wife of the appellant was received in Police Station, Jind, informing the police that she has been admitted to Civil Hospital, Jind, with burn injuries. Shri Satpal Singh, SI, accompanied by other police officials reached Civil Hospital, Jind. In the meantime, Veeran Devi, deceased, had been forwarded to PGIMS, Rohtak. Shri Satpal Singh, SI, reached PGIMS, Rohtak and enquired about her condition and filed an application before the Duty Magistrate, for recording the statement of Veera Devi. Shri K.K. Bali, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, recorded the statement of Veera Devi, while she was lying admitted in Ward No. 5, PGIMS, Rohtak and before doing so, obtained the opinion of the doctor whether she is fit to make a statement. The doctor opined that Veera Devi is fit to make a statement. Veera Devi made a statement indicting her husband by stating that her husband had dragged her into the street and set her on fire after sprinkling oil. On the basis of the dying declaration, the police lodged an FIR. The appellant was arrested. Smt. Veera Devi passed away on 18.10.2000. The dead body was forwarded for post mortem. The post mortem report records that extensive burns suffered by Veeran Devi and its complications were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the accused was committed to the court of Sessions. A charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but as the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the prosecution was directed to prove the charge, so levelled. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined the following witnesses: -

(2.) APART from the oral deposition, the prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence: -

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence on record and arguments addressed by and on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him in terms referred to in the opening paragraph of the judgment.