RADHA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second application for bail under Sec. 439 CrPC has been moved on behalf of applicant Smt. Radha Devi, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 143/2016 registered at the Police Station Samdari, District Barmer for the offences under Ss. 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Nishant Bora, representing the applicant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. He contended that the petitioner is the mother of Om Prakash, who was married to the deceased Vidhya. It was a case of 'Aata-Sata' marriage and the applicant's daughter was married to Ramesh Kumar, brother of Vidhya. He submitted that the Parcha Bayan of the deceased recorded at the Burn Unit of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur is a tutored statement. He drew the court's attention to the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer in the charge- sheet, wherein, the theory portrayed in the dying declaration that the mother-in-law (applicant) and the father-in-law Anda Ram poured kerosene on the Vidhya's body and that the father-in-law set her to fire has been discarded. He urged that the finding recorded in the charge-sheet that the deceased immolated herself after pouring kerosene on her body is closer to truth. He contended that even in the dying declaration of Smt. Vidhya recorded by the Magistrate, there is no allegation that she was ever harassed or humiliated on account of demand of dowry. He also drew the court's attention towards the statement of Ramesh Kumar (P.W.13), being the brother of the deceased, who admitted in his cross-examination that the accused took the deceased to the hospital for providing her treatment after she had received the burn injuries. He contended that in view of the fact that the husband of the deceased is not an accused, it is apparent that the endeavour of the prosecution in this case has all along been to somehow or the other implicate the father-in-law and the mother- in-law because the matrimonial relations between Ramesh Kumar and his wife Sangeeta had gone sour. He, also drew the court's attention to the statement of P.W.1 Sangeeta, wife of Ramesh Kumar, who in her examination-in-chief, stated that the deceased Vidhya was of aggressive nature and that she set fire to herself in a fit of rage. He urged that similar statement was given by Seeta (P.W.2). As per Mr. Bora, since both these witnesses are relied upon by the prosecution and were not declared hostile, manifestly, their testimony cannot be doubted. He, thus, urged that the applicant, who is a woman and is in custody since 6/12/2016, deserves indulgence of bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Bora. However, both of them could not dispute the fact that the material prosecution witnesses P.W.1 Sangeeta and P.W.2 Seeta have given affirmative testimony at the trial that the deceased set fire to herself in a fit of rage. Whether or not the Parcha Bayan and the dying declaration of the deceased would be reliable in light of the testimony of these two witnesses and the finding recorded in the charge-sheet, would be for the trial court to consider at the final stage, but presently, considering the aspect that the petitioner is a woman and is in custody for last more than two years, this court is inclined to extend the indulgence of bail to her under Sec. 439 CrPC.