CHANDRA KALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second bail application on behalf of the petitioner - Smt. Chandra Kanta, who is charged to have committed offence under Sections 498-A and 302, IPC.

(2.) DECEASED - Smt. Chandra Kanta died out of burn injuries on intervening night of 4th/5. 05. 1990, who was married about two years back. It is submitted by Mr. K. K. Sharma, learned counsel, that this was a case of suicide and,. in fact, Ratan - brother of the husband of deceased tried to saved her and in the process himself also received some burn injuries. She was rushed to E. S. I. Hospital, from where, she was referred to S. M. S. Hospital. It is pointed out that in. her dying declaration recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police, she has clearly stated that Ratan & her father-in-law saved her from fire and she has no complaint against them. It is also submitted that there is note in the diary that an effort was made to bring a Judicial Magistrate to record her dying declaration, but none was available, therefore, it was recorded by the ASI. It is pointed out that a telegram was sent on 4. 5. 90 to parents, after she received injuries, even though, they reached on 5. 05. 1990, after the funeral had taken place. It is submitted that they stayed for few days, but did not lodge any complaint. However, a complaint was lodged on 13. 5. 90 by Kishan Das, who maternal uncle of the deceased Chandrakanta. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that second bail application has ben filed after the challan has ben filed in the court, therefore, the petitioner has also come to know about all the statements of witnesses recorded under Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. It was alleged in the FIR that ever since the marriage, demand of dowry was made and the deceased was tortured. However, It is submitted that only letter dated 1. 2. 89 written by the deceased to her father & mother , produced by the prosecution, does not say a word about any demand of dowry or torture. The learned counsel has referred to statements of Rameshwar father of deceased, Kishandas -who lodged the FIR, Ramchandra elder brother of father of deceased & Kanhaiyalal, who is a distant relation, to speak of demand of dowry. It is submitted that no reliance can be placed on their statements. It is further submitted that statements of Surjeet Singh, Badrinarain, Meera Florence, Dr. Pradeep Goyal & Dr. Zian Shanker cannot be relied upon, in view of her dying declaration. These statements were recorded on 13. 5. 90 when the FIR was lodged on the same day, whereas, the incident took place on 4. 5. 90. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner is a woman and keeping in view the proviso to Section 437, Cr. P. C. , she deserves to be released on bail. Reference was made to Smt. Kunti & another v. State of Haryana (1), in which, the matter came upon second bail application by two women accused for murder. It was stated that the earlier bail application was disposed of in ignorance of third dying declaration, in which names of these two women did not figure. The accused women were mothers of minor children and their children also suffered from incarceration. Both the women accused were released on bail. Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. State of U. P. (2), it was observed that word "may" in first proviso has been used to mean "shall" and "must". The accused woman, in this case, who was 72 years of age, was allowed bail on compassionate grounds, as the matter was still be tried and evidence to be collected. Smt. Rameshwari Devi v. State of Rajasthan (3) was a case, in which, petitioner along with four other persons, sent for the deceased Ghisusingh and gave her beatings and on account of multiple injuries, he became unconscious and, thereafter, died. In this case, the petitioner also lodged a report to the effect that after being drunk, Ghishusingh as usual had come and gave a knife blow to the accused-petitioner who, on being examined by Doctor, was found having an injury by sharp weapon on her right hand, lower part. It was, therefore, held by this Court that in the facts & circumstances, the accused, who is a woman & her case is covered under the proviso to Section 437, Cr. P. C. and it will be proper in the interest of justice, if she is enlarged on bail.