STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against judgment dated 11.8.1995 rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby he acquitted all the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the prosecution case is that Shrimati Sushila (deceased) was married with Umed Singh accused. Her younger sister Shrimati Sunil, PW-4 was married with Suresh, a younger brother of Umed Singh, Sushila gave birth to two male children out of whom one is living with her parents and the other one is living with his father and grand parents. She was brought up by Shrimati Chanderpati, Shiv Lal's wife's sister. Chanderpati was married to Shiv Lal's real brother. On 27.6.1993, when Om Parkash, PW-5, a resident of village Manikwala, i.e. from the village of the girl's side, in routine visited the deceased Sushila at her in-laws place, her other sister Sunil was also present there. He noticed that Sushila and Sunil both were weeping because they were being tortured by the in-laws. However, he after having known about this torture, handed over Rs. 2/- each to Sushila and Sunil as some money is customarily given to the daughters when people from their parental place visited them. On 28.6.1993 at about 7.00 a.m., Sushila was admitted in Civil Hospital, Charkhi Dadri. She was taken by Munni (accused), Umed (accused) and Manoj (accused) to Civil Hospital for her treatment. When she was being treated in the hospital, Dhan Singh, PW-1, Naib Tehsildar recorded her dying declaration, Exh. PA. in which she claimed that on the said morning of 28.6.1993, her husband's sister Billo and Munni accused gave her some poisonous substance in the tea as they were annoyed of the household chores and on this count they used to pick up quarrel with her on trivial matters. At that time, when she was administered the poisonous substance, Vinod, Munni's husband, her mother-in-law and Umed, her husband were also present. On the basis of this dying declaration, FIR, Exh. PA/4 was registered as Sushila expired at 1.20 p.m. on 28.6.1993 in the aforementioned hospital. The autopsy was conducted on her dead body by Dr. H.L. Beniwal, PW-9. On receipt of Chemical Examiner's Report, Exh. PE, it was found that Sushila died of poisoning of aluminium phosphide. Initially, the case was registered under Section 308/34 of IPC but the challan was presented under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for trial of the accused. On commitment, Dal Kaur, Bimla, Umed Singh and Manoj were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. They claimed trial.

(3.) MR . S.S. Randhawa, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, eloquently urged that on appraisal of the prosecution evidence, it transpires that the deceased was being tortured by the accused persons and to put an end to her life they administered aluminium phosphide to her by mixing it in tea and thus the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting them. To add further to it, he valiantly urged that the dying declaration, Exh. PA recorded by Dhan Singh, PW-1 speaks volume of their involvement in the commission of this crime and as would be apparent from the judgment under appeal, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the dying declaration as well as other evidence in a desired manner. Consequently, the same is liable to be reversed.