Dharam Pal vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.

The accused Dharam Pal and Satish Kumar are brothers and the accused Sushma is sister. Dharam Pal was married about one year prior to the occurrence and his wife''s name was also Sushma. He was employed as an Overseer in the Canal Department and was posted at Mukerian. He and his wife were occupying a Government quarter in the Canal Colony, Mukerian.

Allegation of the prosecution is that soon after the marriage the deceased Sushma''s in laws started harassing her for bringing inadequate dowry. On November 12, 1983 her brother Rajinder Kumar (PW5) came from Amritsar to Mukerian to enquire about her welfare and on reaching the house of Dharam Pal accused he was informed that his sister Sushma had suffered burn injuries and had been taken to the Dayanand Hospital, Ludhiana. He rushed to Ludhiana and reached the hospital at about 6.45 p.m. He found that Sushma was admitted in the casualty ward. When he meet her she informed him that her husband Dharam pal with the help of his brother Satish Kumar and sister Sushma had burnt her by sprinkling kerosene oil on her person. Rajinder Kumar (PW5) contacted his father Amolak Ram (PW6) at Amritsar on telephone and informed him of the occurrence. Amolak Ram immediately came to Ludhiana and reached the hospital and about 11.00 p.m., Sushma had succumbed to the injuries in the meantime. Sub Inspector Harish Kumar of Police Station, Mukerian, (PW7), on receiving information regarding the death of Sushma went to Dayanand Hospital, Ludhiana, and he recorded the statement of Rajinder Kumar (PW5). On the basis of this statement a formal First Information Report was recorded at Police Station, Mukerian, under Section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code, against Dharam Pal, Satish Kumar and Sushma. The accused were arrested on November 21, 1983.

Autopsy performed on the body of Sushma by Dr. Kuldip Singh (PW1) revealed that there were superficial to deep burns all over the body. In the opinion of the doctor, Sushma had died due to shock on account of extensive burns and the burns were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

During the course of trial the prosecution placed reliance on the medical evidence and the testimony of Rajinder Kumar (PW5) and Amolak Ram (PW6). The allegations of the prosecution were denied by the accused in their statements under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused Satish Kumar and Sushma stated that they are residents of village Bhattian and they were not even present at Mukerian when Sushma deceased suffered burn injuries. Satish Kumar examined M.R. Sethi (DW1) to prove that he was present in D.A.V. High School, Urmur, at the time of occurrence, Dharam Pal accused stated as follows :

"We have been falsely involved in this case. I along with Sushma deceased used to reside happily in my house at Mukerian. On 12.11.1983, I was a away to my working site. At 2.00 p.m. that day I received message from Mukerian that I was summoned to Mukerian by Shri Lamba S.D.O. I immediately reached Mukerian. When I reached my house, I found many persons collected and my wife lying with burn injuries in the verandah. I was told that the firstaid had already been given and that the doctor had advised the shifting of my wife to Ludhiana. I immediately arranged a car and also got a telephone call booked for Amritsar. At about 3.00 p.m., I took my wife in the car started for Ludhiana and reached the casualty ward of Dayanand Hospital at 6.30 p.m. The doctor gave first aid and sent Sushma to the new Dayanand Hospital Surgery ward. But the doctor who attended her on reaching there, declared her dead. The hospital officials then shifted the dead body to the deadhouse. I then kept on waiting for all these persons because I had also got a call booked to Amritsar. At about 9.30/10 p.m., my inlaws came there altogether. Leaving them there, I came to my village Bhattian where my parents reside. On the next day when we came to Ludhiana hospital, we came to know that we three, i.e. myself along with two coaccused have been involved in this case. We then moved for anticipatory bail but the same was rejected and then we appeared before the police. We are innocent."

On appraisal of evidence the learned trial Court accepted alibi of Satish Kumar accused and also found participation in occurrence of the accused Sushma doubtful. These two accused were, therefore, acquitted. However, Dharam Pal accused was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and as sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/. Aggrieved by this order Dharam Pal has preferred the instant appeal.

The conviction of the appellant Dharam Pal is mainly based on the dying declaration of the deceased which she statedly made to her brother Rajinder Kumar (PW5) before her death in the hospital at Ludhiana. We one, however, unable to place reliance on this dying declaration. It is proved from the statement of Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW10) that the deceased had been brought to Dayanand Hospital, Ludhiana, on November 12, 1983 at 6.35 p.m. She was admitted in the casualty ward at 7.05 p.m. Ten minutes thereafter i.e., at 7.15 p.m. she succumbed to the injuries. It is categorically stated by the doctor that during all this period the deceased was unable to speak being in neurogenic shock. Averment of the doctor is that the deceased had 80 per cent burn injuries on her person and was groaning. There is no reason why the statement of this independent witness should not be believed. No doubt the prosecution got this witness declared hostile and crossexamined him, but despite lengthy cross examination no infirmity was elicited from his statement. Even otherwise the circumstances indicate that it is extremely doubtful that the deceased made any dying declaration to her brother. She was admitted in the casualty ward at 7.00 p.m. and she died soon thereafter at 7.15 p.m. It is difficult to believe that Rajinder Kumar (PW5) arrived in the hospital during those very 10 minutes and heard the dying declaration of the deceased. It deserves to be highlighted that in the alleged dying declaration the deceased had implicated all the three accused. However, the trial Court did not rely upon the dying declaration in relation to the accused Satish Kumar and Sushma. No appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of these two accused. In such circumstances it is not possible to uphold the dying declaration against one of the accused and reject it visavis the two other accused. In other words the dying declaration, a part of which has been held to be false, cannot be relied upon the base conviction of the appellant.

Another piece of evidence on which the prosecution has placed reliance is the letter (Ext. PE) alleged to have been written by the deceased to her father Amolak Ram (PW6). This letter is dated 10th November, 1983 and, according to Amolak Ram (PW6), was received by him on the day of occurrence i.e. November 12, 1983 in the morning at about 10.45 a.m. In this letter deceased had informed her father that mother and brothers of her husband Dharam Pal were threatening to burn her. In our view this evidence is of doubtful character. If this letter had been received by Amolak Ram (PW6) on the morning of 12.11.1983, he must have informed its contents to his son Rajinder Kumar (PW5) when he reached the hospital in Ludhiana at about 11.00 p.m. He had no reason to suppress this letter, specially when Rajinder Kumar (PW5) must have told him about the dying declaration of the deceased. However, no mention of this letter was made by Rajinder Kumar (PW5) to the police in his earliest statement on the next morning. The letter saw the light of the day of November 18, 1983 for the time as stated by Amolak Ram (PW6). It is on that day that he produced it before the police. In these circumstances we consider justified in assuming that this letter seems to have been prepared after the lodging of the First Information Report to bolster the prosecution case against the accused.

Even if it is believed that the letter (Ext. PE) was written by the deceased to her father, it contains no allegation against the appellant. The deceased had made a grievance against the mother and brother of the appellant and not a word was said against the appellant. Thus, on the strength of this letter it cannot be held that the appellant Dharam Pal had set his wife on fire.

For aforesaid reasons the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is therefore, allowed and the appellant Dharam Pal is hereby acquitted.