Ranjit Kaur vs Bhura Singh and Others

Sabina, J.—Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were tried for an offence u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 367 dated 6.8.2002 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 27.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, Bathinda. Aggrieved by the same, Ranjit Kaur-complainant has filed the present revision petition.

The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:

The case of the prosecution in brief is that FIR No. 367 dated 6.8.2002, P.S. Kotwali, Bathinda was registered against the accused on the statement of Ranjit Kaur wife of Gurpreet Singh resident of Gali No. 3, Harbans Nagar, Bathinda, to the effect that she is married with Gurpreet Singh. That her parents in law Bhura Singh and Hardev Kaur are residing in the adjoining house. That her father-in-law Bhura Singh, intends to sell their residential house and shops and wants to settle in his ancestral village Dholla, Distt. Barnala, but the complainant wants to reside in the same house. That her father Gurdev Singh had come to see her and her children from village Naruana. That at about 11 p.m. her father had gone to I.T.I. Chowk to fetch milk for her children. That the front door was opened, while she was lying with her children in the Court yard. That she went to sleep but after some time, she felt heat near waist and the breast. At this, she got up and saw her father-in-law Bhura Singh and her mother in law Hardev Kaur alongwith her husband Gurpreet Singh and they were saying that she will not be spared today and she will be taught a lesson for asking for a share in the property. She raised alarm, and ran out side the house. In the meantime, her father returned after fetching milk and extinguished the fire from her clothes. The accused fled from the place of occurrence, her father arranged for a vehicle and the complainant was admitted in the civil hospital, Bathinda.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

The trial Court has misread the evidence on record and has based the acquittal of respondents No. 1 to 3 on surmises and conjectures. Injured Ranjit Kaur appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and has deposed in her examination-in-chief as under:

I was lying in my house with my husband Gurpreet Singh. This house was divided into two by raising a small wall in the court-yard. My mother-in-law Hardev Kaur and my father-in-law Bhura Singh were living in the other portion of the house. My mother-in-law and father-in-law want to sell this house and the shops and they wanted to shift to village Dhaula tehsil Barnala. The shops which they wanted to sell are adjoining to my house. They were given to me by my father-in-law in partition before the Panchayat. I wanted to stay in the house in order to provide education to my children. I was not willing to go to village Dhaula. There used to be quarrel about one or one and half month prior to the day of occurrence. I was opposing the sale of the house and the shops. On 5.8.2002 my father Gurdev Singh had come to our house in order to see me and my children. On that day, my husband did not come to the house in the evening. My father went to I.T.I. Chowk in order to bring milk for the children. The door of the house was lying opened. I was lying on a cot in the court-yard of the house. My children were lying on another cot. I was sleeping. When I felt heat on my chest, I woke up. My husband, my mother-in-law and my father-in-law were standing on the three side of my cot. My husband and my father-in-law were having ignition lighter with them and my mother in law was having match-box. They were saying that they would not leave me alive and that I would be done to death and that I would be given the lesson for getting share in the property in partition. I got up and starting raising alarm MARTA MARTA and came at the Gate of the house. My father was coming with milk from the opposite direction. My clothes had caught fire and I had received burns on my body. Then the accused ran away. My father had also seen them running. I told the occurrence to my father. I was brought to Civil Hospital, Bathinda for treatment. My father accompanied me to the Hospital. I had made statement before the police at about 2.00 a.m. on 6.8.2002. I was medically examined. I remained admitted in the Hospital for one month. I made statement EX.PF before the police and the same was read over and explained to me and I had signed it after admitting it as correct. After marriage accused had started demanding dowry. I was moving applications against the accused. On the day of occurrence, I had moved application to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Bathinda and the case has been registered against the accused, Jugraj Singh and Jasbir Kaur. My partly burnt shirt is Ex.P.1. Similarly my partly burnt Salwar is Ex.P.3 and my partly burnt chuni is Ex.P.2. At this stage a duly sealed parcel has been opened in the Court. It contains Khes Ex.P.4. This khes was wrapped on me by my father to extinguish the fire.

PW-1 Dr. Kasturi Lal, who had medico legally examined injured Ranjit Kaur, found the following injuries on her person:

Superficial deep burns in patches on right lower abdomen (9" X 4")

Superficial fresh burns on lower abdomen in an area 3� and 3 inches.

Superficial burns on both memorary glands at places.

Superficial burns on right thumb and adjoining two fingers.

Superficial burns on right anterior aspect of elbow joint 8 cm. X 2� cms.

Erythema on face (fore-head), eyebrow hair and a part of scalp front hair signed.

Superficial burns 2 X 1 inch on right side of neck. Redness around all the body was present.

Total burn area was 15 to 20%.

The ocular version as given by injured Ranjit Kaur is duly corroborated by the medical evidence but the trial Judge has discarded the same on irrelevant considerations. The injured has specifically deposed that she was sleeping on the bed along with her children and found that she had been set on fire. Respondents No. 1 to 3 were standing near the bed. Her husband and her father-in-law were having a lighter in their hand, whereas, her mother-in-law was having a match box. They were also saying that they would not leave her alive and that she would be done to death and that she would be taught a lesson for getting a share in the property in partition.

There is no dispute that revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the complainant has to be exercised by this Court only in very exceptional cases where this Court finds that there is flagrant miscarriage of justice. The State has chosen not to prefer an appeal against acquittal.

Present case is a fit case which is liable to be remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law after taking into account all the material/ evidence available on record in consideration as there is flagrant miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.8.2004 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.