State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Chopra & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.615 of 1984
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.84 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Crl. A.No.21 of 1983)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.84 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Crl. A.No.21 of 1983)
Petitioner: State of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent: Sh. Raj Kumar Chopra & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No.615 of 1984
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.84 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Crl. A.No.21 of 1983)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.84 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Crl. A.No.21 of 1983)
Judges: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY & N.P. SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 19, 1994
Appearances:
Mr. Shiv Pujan Singh, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Mr. D.N.Goburdhan, Mr. D.Goburdhan and Ms. Pinky Anand, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. N.Natarajan, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
Section 302/34 – Death by burning – Alleged dowry death – Dying declaration which was recorded by the Doctor in the presence of the nurse, not implicating any of the accused – Accidental death not ruled out – Prosecution not proving the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt – Acquittal upheld.
JUDGEMENT:
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. :
1. These two appeals, one by the State and the other by Shri M.L. Chadha, father of the deceased, are filed against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents -accused. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal preferred by them was allowed by the High Court and they were acquitted.
2. The prosecution case is as follows:
Shri R.K.Chopra, A-2 is the father and Mrs. Santosh Chopra, A-3 is the mother of A-1 Anil Chopra. The deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra was married to A-1 in the year 1981 who was employed as Administrative -cum-Personnel Officer with Cement Corporation of India, Rajban. After marriage A-1 and the deceased lived in their flat at Rajban. In July 1981, A-2 retired from service. Thereafter he and his wife A-3 also joined A-1 and the deceased at Rajban and continued to live there. In December 1981 the deceased gave birth to a son. Thus the family living at Rajban at the time of occurrence comprised of the three accused, the deceased and the infant child.
3. A-1 used to come home for lunch on working days. On 20.8.1982 also as usual A-1 came home for lunch at about 1 P.M. and after lunch he returned to his office at 2 P.M. A few minutes thereafter an alarm was heard from the house of the accused “JAL GAI JAL GAI BACHAO BACHAO’. Attracted by this alarm, several persons gathered. Dr. Sadiqi, P.W.2, Ashok Bhatia, P.W.13 and Mrs. Kanan Sarkar, P.W.15 were among the persons who reached the scene of occurrence soon after the alarm was heard. They found the deceased lying flat on the floor of the gallery outside the kitchen with extensive burns all over the body. The burns were estimated at 90% to 95% and the water flushed in the gallery where the deceased was lying, was emitting smell of kerosene oil. In the meanwhile A-2 rang up the office of his son A-1 and conveyed the news. A-1 rushed home on his motor cycle. He sought advice from P.W.2 as to what should be done and as advised by him A-1 took the deceased to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, the nearest medical centre, in his own car. Mrs. Kanan Sarkar, P.W.15, who at the relevant time was employed as a nurse in the Health Centre of Cement Corporation of India also accompanied them in the same car. P.W.2 and A-2 followed in a separate vehicle. They reached the Civil Hospital at about 2.30 P.M. Dr. Surender Gandhi, P.W.1 who was incharge there, examined the deceased, rendered some medical aid and advised the accused to take her to some better hospital. They accordingly took the deceased to Harbertpur Mission Hospital which is about 9 kms away from Paonta Sahib and which is a well-equipped hospital. They reached there at about 3.30 P.M. and P.Ws. 2 and 15 were also with the deceased at that time. Dr. Claudius, Medical Superintendent, P.W.5 admitted her in the Hospital. He examined the deceased and found burns all over the body except scalp. P.W.5 gave Pathedine Injection 100 mg. and another dose of 50 mg. at 5 P.M. Before that at 4 P.M., P.W.5 prepared the patient chart, Ex.PC.20 in which he recorded the history of the patient and it reads thus:
“History given by patient herself that she got burnt while boiling milk due to bursting of stove (kerosene stove with wicks). Her child was sleeping there and her parents in -law were sleeping in an other room. When she shouted they came to save her. Then they took her to Paonta hospital.”
P.W.5 informed the concerned Police Station at Sehaspur and got the deceased prepared for the necessary operation. At about 5.20 P.M., Shiv Kumar, S.I. of Police, P.W.20 came to the Hospital and P.W.5 recorded the dying declaration, Ex.PE, of the deceased in the presence of P.W.20 and the same was sent in a sealed cover to the Superintendent of Police, Dehra Dun. In this dying declaration, the deceased has clearly stated that while boiling the milk, the stove got burst and she was all alone in the room and her in-laws were in the other room and at that time her husband had gone to office. Because of the burst of the stove, she got fired. She shouted and immediately A-2 and A-3 came and wrapped blanket on her body. She has also mentioned about the presence of P.W.2, another Doctor, who came there and as to how she was taken to the Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. The deceased received her medical treatment throughout at Harbertpur Mission Hospital but her condition started deteriorating. She, however, remained conscious and could talk in a feeble tone. Shri M.L. Chadha, P.W.12, the father of the deceased, reached the hospital on 21.8.82 and he and his wife remained at the hospital and attended on the deceased. The deceased, however, died on 25.8.82 and P.W.5 sent the message to the Police Station. P.W.20, S.I. came to the Hospital, held the inquest and sent the dead body of the deceased for
post-mortem, opined that she died because of burn injuries. On 24.8.82, P.W.12 lodged a report, Ex.PJ. with police alleging that the deceased told him that the three accused persons poured kerosene oil on her and set fire for not bringing adequate dowry. The case was investigated and the charge-sheet was laid against the respondents- accused under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty.
4. The trial court relying on the circumstantial evidence as well as on the evidence of P.W.12 who spoke about the oral dying declaration convicted the accused. The trial court rejected the dying declaration recorded by P.W.5 holding that the deceased would not have been in a position to make such a statement and that it was a fabricated one. The Appellate Court, on the other hand, after considering the evidence of P.W.5 and the dying declaration held that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in convicting the accused and accordingly acquitted them.
5. This Court granted leave only in respect of A-2 and A-3 and dismissed both the S.L.Ps. so far A-1 is concerned. Therefore we are left with only A-2 and A-3 in these appeals.
6. The prosecution suggested that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry and that was the motive. This aspect has been considered by the High Court in great detail. We have also perused the evidence and we are not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish the same.
7. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the dying declaration recorded by P.W.5 is a fabricated one ? P.W.5 is a respectable witness and a highly qualified doctor. He did his best to save the deceased. The High Court has discussed his evidence in great detail and in our view has rightly held that there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt the veracity of P.W.5. S.I., P.W.20 also confirmed about the recording of the dying declaration by P.W.5 and he also attested the same. P.W.12, the father of the deceased, naturally was very much upset and he has come forward with the story of oral dying declaration only after some days. One important thing which we have noticed is that P.Ws.2 and 15 who are very respectable witnesses namely a doctor and a nurse and who reached the flat immediately after hearing the alarm, do not say that the deceased said anything against any of the accused. The High Court has considered all the circumdstances and has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused. The High Court, however, passed severe strictures against the police. It is observed that for reasons unknown, the police officers incharge of Police Post, Rajban and Police Station, Paonta Sahib evinced undue interest and went out of their way in fabricating the evidence to involve the accused in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. The High Court also ordered that an enquiry should be held.
8. From a perusal of the records, it is clear that P.W.12 gave a report to the police based on the alleged oral dying declaration stating that it was a case of murder. Therefore the police had to necessarily register a case and investigate. In that process they also investigated into the circumstance namely whether the deceased having received 90% to 95% burns and also having been administered Pathedine could have made a statement to P.W.5, Dr. Claudius. In this regard they seemed to have their own suspicion and they could not conclude one way or the other. In this view of the matter if the police filed a charge-sheet alleging that it was a case of murder committed by the accused, it is difficult to to say that they made out a false case evincing undue interest. In this context it has to be noted that the trial court, as matter of fact, convicted the accused accepting the prosecution case namely that it was a case of murder. Therefore it cannot be concluded that the police evinced undue interest and went out of the way and fabricated the evidence.
9. However, as already discussed, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of P.Ws. 5 and 20. The plea of the defence that the death was due to an accident, can not be ruled out. Therefore the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Further these are appeals against acquittal and the High Court has given good reasons for acquitting the respondents. We see no grounds to interfere. Accordingly both these appeals are dismissed.
1. These two appeals, one by the State and the other by Shri M.L. Chadha, father of the deceased, are filed against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents -accused. The trial court convicted them under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal preferred by them was allowed by the High Court and they were acquitted.
2. The prosecution case is as follows:
Shri R.K.Chopra, A-2 is the father and Mrs. Santosh Chopra, A-3 is the mother of A-1 Anil Chopra. The deceased Mrs. Kiran Chopra was married to A-1 in the year 1981 who was employed as Administrative -cum-Personnel Officer with Cement Corporation of India, Rajban. After marriage A-1 and the deceased lived in their flat at Rajban. In July 1981, A-2 retired from service. Thereafter he and his wife A-3 also joined A-1 and the deceased at Rajban and continued to live there. In December 1981 the deceased gave birth to a son. Thus the family living at Rajban at the time of occurrence comprised of the three accused, the deceased and the infant child.
3. A-1 used to come home for lunch on working days. On 20.8.1982 also as usual A-1 came home for lunch at about 1 P.M. and after lunch he returned to his office at 2 P.M. A few minutes thereafter an alarm was heard from the house of the accused “JAL GAI JAL GAI BACHAO BACHAO’. Attracted by this alarm, several persons gathered. Dr. Sadiqi, P.W.2, Ashok Bhatia, P.W.13 and Mrs. Kanan Sarkar, P.W.15 were among the persons who reached the scene of occurrence soon after the alarm was heard. They found the deceased lying flat on the floor of the gallery outside the kitchen with extensive burns all over the body. The burns were estimated at 90% to 95% and the water flushed in the gallery where the deceased was lying, was emitting smell of kerosene oil. In the meanwhile A-2 rang up the office of his son A-1 and conveyed the news. A-1 rushed home on his motor cycle. He sought advice from P.W.2 as to what should be done and as advised by him A-1 took the deceased to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, the nearest medical centre, in his own car. Mrs. Kanan Sarkar, P.W.15, who at the relevant time was employed as a nurse in the Health Centre of Cement Corporation of India also accompanied them in the same car. P.W.2 and A-2 followed in a separate vehicle. They reached the Civil Hospital at about 2.30 P.M. Dr. Surender Gandhi, P.W.1 who was incharge there, examined the deceased, rendered some medical aid and advised the accused to take her to some better hospital. They accordingly took the deceased to Harbertpur Mission Hospital which is about 9 kms away from Paonta Sahib and which is a well-equipped hospital. They reached there at about 3.30 P.M. and P.Ws. 2 and 15 were also with the deceased at that time. Dr. Claudius, Medical Superintendent, P.W.5 admitted her in the Hospital. He examined the deceased and found burns all over the body except scalp. P.W.5 gave Pathedine Injection 100 mg. and another dose of 50 mg. at 5 P.M. Before that at 4 P.M., P.W.5 prepared the patient chart, Ex.PC.20 in which he recorded the history of the patient and it reads thus:
“History given by patient herself that she got burnt while boiling milk due to bursting of stove (kerosene stove with wicks). Her child was sleeping there and her parents in -law were sleeping in an other room. When she shouted they came to save her. Then they took her to Paonta hospital.”
P.W.5 informed the concerned Police Station at Sehaspur and got the deceased prepared for the necessary operation. At about 5.20 P.M., Shiv Kumar, S.I. of Police, P.W.20 came to the Hospital and P.W.5 recorded the dying declaration, Ex.PE, of the deceased in the presence of P.W.20 and the same was sent in a sealed cover to the Superintendent of Police, Dehra Dun. In this dying declaration, the deceased has clearly stated that while boiling the milk, the stove got burst and she was all alone in the room and her in-laws were in the other room and at that time her husband had gone to office. Because of the burst of the stove, she got fired. She shouted and immediately A-2 and A-3 came and wrapped blanket on her body. She has also mentioned about the presence of P.W.2, another Doctor, who came there and as to how she was taken to the Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. The deceased received her medical treatment throughout at Harbertpur Mission Hospital but her condition started deteriorating. She, however, remained conscious and could talk in a feeble tone. Shri M.L. Chadha, P.W.12, the father of the deceased, reached the hospital on 21.8.82 and he and his wife remained at the hospital and attended on the deceased. The deceased, however, died on 25.8.82 and P.W.5 sent the message to the Police Station. P.W.20, S.I. came to the Hospital, held the inquest and sent the dead body of the deceased for
post-mortem, opined that she died because of burn injuries. On 24.8.82, P.W.12 lodged a report, Ex.PJ. with police alleging that the deceased told him that the three accused persons poured kerosene oil on her and set fire for not bringing adequate dowry. The case was investigated and the charge-sheet was laid against the respondents- accused under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty.
4. The trial court relying on the circumstantial evidence as well as on the evidence of P.W.12 who spoke about the oral dying declaration convicted the accused. The trial court rejected the dying declaration recorded by P.W.5 holding that the deceased would not have been in a position to make such a statement and that it was a fabricated one. The Appellate Court, on the other hand, after considering the evidence of P.W.5 and the dying declaration held that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in convicting the accused and accordingly acquitted them.
5. This Court granted leave only in respect of A-2 and A-3 and dismissed both the S.L.Ps. so far A-1 is concerned. Therefore we are left with only A-2 and A-3 in these appeals.
6. The prosecution suggested that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry and that was the motive. This aspect has been considered by the High Court in great detail. We have also perused the evidence and we are not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish the same.
7. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the dying declaration recorded by P.W.5 is a fabricated one ? P.W.5 is a respectable witness and a highly qualified doctor. He did his best to save the deceased. The High Court has discussed his evidence in great detail and in our view has rightly held that there are no grounds whatsoever to doubt the veracity of P.W.5. S.I., P.W.20 also confirmed about the recording of the dying declaration by P.W.5 and he also attested the same. P.W.12, the father of the deceased, naturally was very much upset and he has come forward with the story of oral dying declaration only after some days. One important thing which we have noticed is that P.Ws.2 and 15 who are very respectable witnesses namely a doctor and a nurse and who reached the flat immediately after hearing the alarm, do not say that the deceased said anything against any of the accused. The High Court has considered all the circumdstances and has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused. The High Court, however, passed severe strictures against the police. It is observed that for reasons unknown, the police officers incharge of Police Post, Rajban and Police Station, Paonta Sahib evinced undue interest and went out of their way in fabricating the evidence to involve the accused in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. The High Court also ordered that an enquiry should be held.
8. From a perusal of the records, it is clear that P.W.12 gave a report to the police based on the alleged oral dying declaration stating that it was a case of murder. Therefore the police had to necessarily register a case and investigate. In that process they also investigated into the circumstance namely whether the deceased having received 90% to 95% burns and also having been administered Pathedine could have made a statement to P.W.5, Dr. Claudius. In this regard they seemed to have their own suspicion and they could not conclude one way or the other. In this view of the matter if the police filed a charge-sheet alleging that it was a case of murder committed by the accused, it is difficult to to say that they made out a false case evincing undue interest. In this context it has to be noted that the trial court, as matter of fact, convicted the accused accepting the prosecution case namely that it was a case of murder. Therefore it cannot be concluded that the police evinced undue interest and went out of the way and fabricated the evidence.
9. However, as already discussed, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of P.Ws. 5 and 20. The plea of the defence that the death was due to an accident, can not be ruled out. Therefore the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Further these are appeals against acquittal and the High Court has given good reasons for acquitting the respondents. We see no grounds to interfere. Accordingly both these appeals are dismissed.
