Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Hemant Gupta, J.—The appellant preferred the instant appeal aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby he was convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for culpable homicide amounting to murder of his wife Smt. Pappi. The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Pappi (since deceased) wife of Mohinder Singh-appellant made to ASI Bhagwan Dass, who reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on receipt of information Ex. PW9/A regarding admission of Pappi, on 16.09.2007 at about 6.50 PM. In her statement (Ex. PD), Pappi stated that she got married to Mohinder Singh about 8/10 years ago and blessed with a daughter namely Suman, aged about 4 years. She further stated that her husband Mohinder Singh is a habitual drunker and gambler and that he was not doing any work for livelihood. Whenever she objects her husband from taking liquor or from playing gambling, he used to give her beatings. After beatings, she left for her parental home, but their relatives and friends took her to in-laws house. She further stated that today i.e. 16.09.2007, when she along with her mother-in-law namely Safi Bai reached at home from Rajpura after taking medicines, her father-in-law demanded meal, whereupon she replied that she is tired and asked her father-in-law to ask for meals from other two daughters-in-law. It was at about 11.00 AM, her husband started beating her and dragged her in a room and thereafter sprinkled kerosene oil on her and sat her on fire by saying that he would bring to an end day-to-day problems. She raised hue & cry upon which neighbours came at the spot and wrapped her in a blanket and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, she was got admitted in the Government Hospital, Samana by her husband at the instance of neighbours from where she was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. She further stated that her husband put her on fire with an intention to kill her. On the basis of such statement, ruqa (Ex. PD/A3) was sent to the Police Station for registration of an FIR. On receipt of ruqa, FIR (Ex. PD/B) was lodged at about 8.05 PM on the same day.

Thereafter, ASI Bhagwan Dass along with other police officials visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan (Ex. PW9/E). He also taken into possession plastic can containing some kerosene oil and match box containing match sticks lying in the room. On the next day i.e. 17.09.2007, the investigation of this case was entrusted to SI Jaswant Singh, who moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for recording the statement of Pappi. In pursuance of such application, Shri P.S. Rai, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, who was deputed to record the statement, visited Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and recorded the statement of Pappi (Ex. PF). On the same day, the accused was arrested from Bhawanigarh Chowk at Samana by SI Jaswant Singh. After receiving information in respect of death of Pappi on 18.09.2007, he prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. On completion of necessary formalities, the accused was made to stand trial.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Pappi on 18.09.2007 at about 4.25 PM. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock as a result of 80 to 85% burns, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He also proved the post-mortem report as Ex. PA.

PW-10 is Dr. Devesh Kaushal, who declared the patient fit to make statement on 16.09.2007 vide endorsement Ex. PW9/C on an application (Ex. PW9/B) moved by the Police. She deposed that ASI Bhagwan Dass recorded the statement of Pappi (Ex. PD) in her presence and at that time, the patient was fit to make statement. She also deposed about the thumb impression of the deceased and her signatures at points A and C of Ex. PD. She further deposed that she also declared Pappi fit to make statement on 17.09.2007 and that entire proceedings were conducted/written by the Magistrate in her presence. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the patient was not fit to make statement or that she has given wrong certificate regarding fitness that at the time of recording of dying declaration by the Magistrate, the condition of patient had deteriorated or that she was not fit to make the statement.

PW-5 is Shri P.S. Rai, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, who has recorded the statement (Ex. PF) of Pappi--deceased on 17.09.2007 after obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the patient to make statement. He deposed that whatever she stated, he recorded the same. After having recorded the statement Ex. PF, the same was read over to her and in token of its correctness, she put her left thumb impression at point A of Ex. PF. Thereafter, he appended his note Ex. PF/1 certifying the statement as true and fair. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember whether any of the family member of Pappi was present at the time of his arrival in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was unable to depose at that time due to her mental condition or that he has not recorded true statement.

PW-2 is Sukhdev Singh, brother of the deceased, who deposed regarding the maltreatment given by the appellant to his sister. He deposed that on 16.09.2007 at about 3.00 PM, they came to know about the admission of Pappi in the hospital and that he along with her mother Shanti Bai and neighbours reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. He deposed that his sister told him that accused Mohinder Singh sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and sat her ablaze. He deposed that his sister told them that her father-in-law demanded meal and she replied that she was tired and there are two other daughters-in-law from whom he should ask for meal. In the meantime, accused came and started beating her. He deposed that he went to Samana from Patiala to take clothes of her sister where the police party met him on the way. He also deposed regarding recovery of kerosene oil and match box lying in the room, where the accused dragged his sister Pappi. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that his sister could not talk and could not say even a word, when he reached Rajindra Hospital, Patiala at about 3.45 PM. He also denied the suggestion that the police did not record the statement of his sister or that his sister herself put kerosene oil on her body.

PW-4 is Shanti, mother of the deceased. He deposed that the husband of Pappi namely Mohinder Singh, appellant was addicted to liquor and gambling and her daughter used to object to it. Due to this reason, Mohinder Singh used to beat her daughter and sent her daughter to their house. In her cross-examination, she admitted that there was no demand of dowry by the accused from Pappi, but due to quarrel, the deceased used to come to them. She denied the suggestion that the burn injuries received by Pappi were accidental or that accused did not put her on fire. She stated that she met Pappi in the evening on the day of occurrence in the Hospital at Patiala and that Police did not record the statement of Pappi before their arrival. She also denied the suggestion that Pappi gave statement as dictated to her.

Apart from the above witnesses, the prosecution also examined the formal witnesses to complete the chain of circumstances.

All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in his statement, Mohinder Singh denied the prosecution story and impleaded false implication.

After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that it is a case of suicide, as the appellant himself has received injuries, which is possible only in the course of an attempt to save his wife from the burns. It is argued that the appellant and his deceased wife were living in one room with arrangement to cook food in that room alone and, therefore, the deceased committed suicide in the said room. It is also contended that the patient was not in fit mental and physical condition so as to give description of the events leading to her death, apart from the fact that her brother and mother had arrived at the Hospital before recording of statement, thus, tutoring the deceased to give statement against the appellant.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the entire record.

The first dying declaration i.e. Ex. PD was recorded by PW-9 ASI Bhagwan Dass at about 6.50 PM on 16.09.2007 on the basis of which FIR was lodged. The time of occurrence is 11.00 AM and the injured patient was removed from Government Hospital, Samana to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where her statement was recorded. The statement of Pappi--deceased was recorded after PW-10 Dr. Devesh Kaushal declared her fit to make statement. The statement recorded gives the brief background of her husband--the present appellant being drunkard and gambler and that he started beating her, when she asked her father-in-law to take meal from two other daughters-in-law. In fact, she has given the cause of immediate anger of the appellant of burning her. Such statement is repeated on the next day, when PW-5 Shri P.S. Rai, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala recorded her statement (Ex. PF) in pursuance of order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala on an application moved by PW-8 SI Jaswant Singh for recording the statement of Pappi. Both PW-9 ASI Bhagwan Dass and PW-5 Shri P.S. Rai, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class have categorically deposed that the patient was fit to make statement. In fact, PW-5 Shri P.S. Rai has certified that the patient remained conscious throughout the period the statement was being recorded by putting a separate endorsement to this effect. Same is the statement of PW-10 Dr. Devesh Kaushal. Therefore, the statement Ex. PD i.e. the basis of FIR and the statement Ex. PF recorded by PW-5 Shri P.S. Rai are proved to have been given by the deceased in a fit mental state of affairs. There is no contradiction in two statements recorded after a gap of one day. In the statement Ex. PF recorded on 17.09.2007, the only change is that she had served two chapattis to her father-in-law, which fact does not find mention in the first statement Ex. PD. But the fact remains that discord between the husband and wife; her coming to matrimonial home and demand of food by father-in-law are common in both the statements.

Apart from the fact that it is the appellant, who poured kerosene oil on her and sat her ablaze, the plastic can containing some kerosene oil and match box containing match sticks have been recovered on the day of occurrence itself from the residential room of the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution case that the accused-appellant sprinkled kerosene oil and sat her wife Pappi ablaze is proved. The discord between the husband and wife also stands proved from the testimonies of PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, brother of the deceased and PW-4 Shanti, mother of the deceased.

Still further, a perusal of the rough site plans Ex. PW9/E prepared by PW-9 ASI Bhagwan Dass and Ex. PW-6/A prepared by PW-6 Satpal, Patwari Halqa on the instructions of PW-8 SI Jaswant Singh, shows that the house has three rooms, whereas the kitchen is in the courtyard. The said site plans corroborate the prosecution evidence that the accused pushed the deceased to the room, when she refused to cook food for her father-in-law and sat her ablaze in that room.

During the course of cross-examination, the prosecution witnesses have been suggested that the deceased has committed suicide, but in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the stand of the appellant is that he has not killed her wife. There is no statement of suicide in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the prosecution witnesses have denied the allegations of suicide.

In view of the above, we do not find that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from any patent illegality or irregularity. From the two statements i.e. Ex. PD and Ex. PF, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt that it is the appellant, who caused death of his wife Pappi. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.