IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2002
Reserved on : December 12, 2006
18.12.2006
Date of Decision: December 18, 2006
Charan Singh ............... Appellant
Through Mr. Subodh
Markandaya, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Chitra
Markandaya and
Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advs.
versus
State ................ Respondent
Through Mr. Ravinder Chadha,
APP with Mr. Jagdish
Prasad,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.SODHI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
YES
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES
J U D G M E N T
R.S.SODHI, J:
1. Criminal 249 of 2002 challenges the judgment dated 4.3.2002 of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 27/1997, arising out of
FIR No. 606/1995, PS Pahar Ganj, whereby the learned Judge has held the
appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and further by order dated 5.3.2002
sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default
simple imprisonment for two months. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was
afforded to the appellant.
2. It was the case of the State that Charan Singh was married to Rani for
about seven years. He subjected her to cruelty with a view to coerce her to
meet his unlawful demands of bringing money from her parents and that on
4.10.1995 he sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze, as a result Rani
expired on 9.10.1995 at 7.10 a.m. The appellant was charged for an offence
under Section 498-A/302 IPC.
3. The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 17 witnesses. Of
these, PW-1, Smt. Premwati, is the mother of the deceased while PW-4, Raj Kumar,
is the brother. PW-1, Premwati, has deposed that she had spent a considerable
amount on the marriage of her daughter and had given a scooter, sofa set,
almirah, box etc. and also gave Rs.40,000/- after mortgaging her land. However,
this did not satisfy the appellant, Charan Singh, who began harassing her
daughter. Two years prior to the deposition on 5th October, she received a
telephonic message through Vinod, brother-in-law of the accused, that her
daughter had received burn injuries and was in hospital. One paanwala took her
and his son to the hospital. There she found her daughter unconscious. While
her daughter regained consciousness on the following day, she told her that her
husband had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and then went down stairs
raising an alarm ?aag lag gai, aag lag gai?. The deceased is also stated to
have told this witness that her husband had paid token money for purchase of a
house and was compelling the deceased to bring money from her parents. It was
due to this that a quarrel took place and Rani was burnt.
4. In cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State,
this witness admits that in her statement before the SDM on 5.10.1995, she had
stated that her daughter had told her that she had taken money from the pocket
of Charan Singh for expenses on which account Charan Singh had beaten the
deceased and set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her.
5. PW-4, Raj Kumar, deposed to the fact that his sister was being harassed
by her husband who used to demand money from her. The witness tried to explain
to Charan Singh that he should not ill-treat Rani and that Charan Singh should
do some work where he can earn a better livelihood. The witness goes on to say
that in order relieve Charan Singh of his debt, he had sold his land and given
Rs.40,000/- to Charan Singh in the presence of his sister as loan. The money was
not returned. The witness deposed that two-and-half months prior to the
occurrence, his sister had informed him that Charan Singh needed some money to
purchase a plot for which token money had already been paid. The witness
expressed his inability to arrange the money. On 4.10.1995 at about 8.00 a.m.,
he received a telephonic message at Khurja that her sister, Rani, caught fire
while preparing tea and was admitted in the hospital. The witness, along with
her mother, came to the house of Rani at Paharganj. While at the house of Rani,
they met Chachi of Charan Singh who informed him that she was away to her
village along with children of accused and there she heard that Rani caught fire
while lighting 'JOT' as she was worshiping for Dusshera. On reaching the
hospital they found Rani unconscious. The witness goes on to say that when Rani
gained consciousness, she told him that she was observing Navrartra fasts and
took money from the pocket of the accused for eating something and for household
expenses on which a quarrel ensued. She was beaten by the accused and she
became unconscious whereafter the accused sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set
her on fire. After bolting the door from outside, the accused went down.
6. PW-13, Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, states that on 10.10.1995, he along
with Dr. Sanjeev Tandon, had conducted postmortem on the body of Rani. The
Doctor preserved the hair and gave the same to PW-15, Inspector Harish Chander
Joshi, who sent the same for examination to CFSL, Hyderabad and received a
report, Ex. PX. The report stated that the hair tested positive to the presence
of kerosene residue.
7. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed to be
innocent. He stated that his wife, Rani, caught fire accidentally while
lighting the 'JOT' and that when he returned from work, he found Rani in a
burnt condition and was admitted in the hospital where she remained unconscious
till she expired. He and his relatives remained in the hospital throughout day
and night. He has two minor children from the wedlock, both are living with him
and are being looked after by him. He has stated that her mother-in-law had
demanded Rs.50,000/- from him. When he was unable to give that amount, she got
him booked in a false case.
8. The trial court, while appreciating evidence, came to the finding that
the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 could not be relied upon in view of the fact
that Rani was unconscious and not in a position to make a statement at the time
when these witnesses are stated to have met Rani. The trial court also held that
there was no evidence on record to show that the appellant had treated Rani with
cruelty but went on to hold the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC on the
basis of the CFSL report which indicated that there was presence of kerosene
residue in the hair.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in order to hold the
appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC, mere presence of kerosene residue in the
hair was not enough and that there must be positive evidence of the husband
having set his wife ablaze.
10. We have heard learned counsel and have carefully examined the record.
We find from the MLC prepared by the Doctor, Ex.PW-3/A, that the patient when
admitted was conscious, cooperative, oriented but complained of pain at places
of burns. The patient did not inform the Doctor of any harassment by her husband
nor that the burns had been caused due to her husband having set her ablaze. By
about 10.00 p.m. Rani had become unconscious and never gained consciousness
thereafter. We also find from the evidence of PW-13, Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh,
Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, LHMC, Delhi that when he
conducted postmortem on the body of Rani, he did not find any traces of kerosene
nor smell of kerosene and also that no kerosene oil smell was present on the
scalp. In cross-examination, he states that the burns cast by kerosene oil are
usually very severe and are known from its characteristic odour and the sooty
blackening of the parts. In the present case, he did not find these
characteristics on the body of the deceased, Rani. We also find that strands of
hair sent to the CFSL were not properly preserved. They were put in a paper bag
and sent. In such an event, possibility of foul play cannot be ruled out.
11. The case of the Prosecution that Rani had been treated with cruelty by
her husband has been held against the Prosecution in which case there is no
motive to cause death of Rani when the couple were enjoying a peaceful serene
married life. Even otherwise taking the case in its totality, we find it would
be exceedingly dangerous to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC for the
murder of Rani merely because residue of kerosene was present in the hair, as
tested by the CFSL. This circumstance in itself is not sufficient to prove the
Prosecution's case to its hilt.
12. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the Prosecution has
not been able to prove its case beyond doubt and that the reasoning of the trial
court in holding the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable.
Consequently, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC
and acquit him of the charges. The appellant, if in custody, shall be released
forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2002 is
allowed and disposed of.
[R.S.SODHI]
JUDGE
[P.K.BHASIN]
JUDGE
December 18, 2006
Jt
