VIRU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants Vim Ram, Bittu, Vinod Kumar, Prem Kumar and Darshan Devi has been held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa dated 12.11.1993 and ordered to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months each. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appellants named above were tried for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing death of one Veena Rani who died on 3.7.1988 at about 12.00 noon. F.I.R. with regard to the incident came to be recorded on the statement of Veena which was recorded by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa at 3.35 p.m. The Special Report with regard to the incident reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 7.00 p.m. on 3.7.1998. Veena Rani who had made the statement before the Judicial Magistrate on 3.7.1998 breathed her last on 4.7.1998 at 4.10 p.m. While giving narration of events, she stated that she was resident of Mohalla Veer Nagar and was married about 11 years ago. She had three sons. Her husband has three brothers. Veeru was the eldest. Prem Nath was younger to him. Her husband was younger to Prem Nath and Charni was the youngest. The name of her father-in-law Was Dalip Chand. They all were living separately in separate houses. On the date on which she lodged the report at about 12 noon, when she reached her house as she was working in the houses of offences, then Veeru her Jeth (elder brother of her husband), her Jethani Muni wife of Veeru, Vinod and Bittu sons of Veeru came to her house behind her and they started quarrelling with her and beating her. Darshna her Darani (wife of Charni, younger brother of her husband) started taunting her that she had illicit relations with her husband Charni. Charni had gone to attend the marriage and while going he had taken a new towel from her and due to which Darshan was taunting her. Veeru and his wife Muni were also helping her. When dispute continued, Veeru picked up a pint of kerosene oil and sprinkled on her, while Muni wife of elder brother of her husband and her both sons who were accompanying them caught hold of her. Darshan lit the match stick and set her ablaze. She was wearing a Gewadeen suit which stuck with her body due to fire, so she was burnt. She raised hue and cry at which their neighbours gathered there and brought her to hospital. Darshna her Darani (wife of younger brother of her husband), Veeru her Jeth (elder brother of her husband) Muni her Jethani and her sons had set her ablaze with common intention to kill her.

(3.) The prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the offences against the appellants examined Dr. H.S. Sandhu P.W. 1 who stated that on 4.7.1998 he had sent Ruqa Ex. PA at 4.15 p.m. to S.H.O. of Police Station Mansa regarding the death of Veena wife of Satpal at 4.10 p.m. in the emergency ward, Civil Hospital, Mansa. She was admitted with burn injuries. Dr. Rajinder Kumar who was examined as P.W. 7 stated that on 3.7.1998 an application was moved by ASI Bansi Lal regarding fitness of Smt. Veena who was declared fit to make a statement vide his endorsement Ex. PW5/C with his opinion that patient Veena wife of Sat Pal was admitted with extensive burns but was responding to all questions and was declared fit to make a statement at 3.25 on 3.7.1998. As per report of Record Keeper dated 4.12.1996 C.R. No. 1573 record had been destroyed and is not available in the records of the Civil Hospital. In his cross-examination he stated that PW5/B was the application on which he opined vide report Ex. PW5/C. He did not remember if any statement of Veera was recorded in his presence or not. He further stated that had the statement been recorded in his presence, then he would have signed the statement. He denied the suggestion that Veena was not fit to make a statement. Dr. K.C. Goyal who appeared as P.W. 8 stated that he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Veena. Dr. Janak Raj Goyal was also with him while conducting the said post-mortem. The dead body was identified by Sat Pal and Prem Nath sons of Dalip Chand. Dead body was brought by Surinder Pal Singh Constable No. 411 of Police Station Mansa. The death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock as a result of extensive burns which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further stated that there were extensive burns on whole of the body. There was vesiculation and peeling of skin was present on most of the parts of the body. Redness and bleaching to skin was also present. Singeing of hair was also present. Limbs and arms were flexed and fingers were locked like claws. In his cross-examination he stated that 100% burns were described if the entire body was covered with deep burns. He did not know percentage of burns on the trunk of the body. There was no mention either of deep or superficial burns in the post-mortem report. He could not tell whether the burns were deep or superficial. Possibility of 100% burns in this case could not be ruled out. Such like burns could be possible by accidently catching fire on clothes of the deceased.