IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 168-DB of 1999
Date of Decision: July 03, 2008
Dhanpat.
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana.
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present : Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate,
as Amicus Curiae,
for the appellant.
Mrs. Naveen Malik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana,
for the respondent.
S.D. Anand, J.
The prosecution allegation, upheld at the trial, was that
the appellant belaboured and poisoned his wife Mst. Sumitra to
death. The occurrence was witnessed by PW5 – Ravita alias Indro
and PW6 – Kavita who are daughters of appellant himself. The fact
that deceased died on account of poison was confirmed by the FSL.
It is in the testimony of PW5 – Ravita alias Indro that the appellant
initially belaboured former’s mother and that she and her sister i.e.
Kavita (PW6) came out of the room into the Verandah (where they
sat on a cot) on account of a threat held out by her father (appellant)
Crl. Appeal No. 168-DB of 1999 2
that they would be done to death in case they raised an alarm. The
appellant held out that threat to them when they tried to come to the
rescue of their mother. It is in her testimony that “thereafter my
father bolted outer gate of the house and then bolted the room from
inside. Thereafter my father opened a bottle of spray and poured it
into a boul (baatki).” After having said that, she averred that
“thereafter my father sat on my mother and threatened to kill her if
she moved and thereupon he poured that spray in mother’s mouth
after holding her nose. We had seen father doing so through slits of
the door. Thereafter me and my sister both started crying and after
some time both of us fell asleep.” It is further in her testimony that
she and her sister woke up at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning. They
tried to converse with their mother but the latter did not respond.
Thereafter, they went to the house of their uncle (elder brother of the
appellant – Hardutt) and told him that their mother was lying dead
and that their father was not available in the house. Her statement is
almost in accord with the testimony of PW6 – Kavita who was found
by the learned Trial Court to be a competent child witness. Hardutt
was not examined at the trial.
The testimony of PW5 – Ravita and PW6 – Kavita does
not inspire confidence. If they had been turned out of the room, they
would not have been able to witness the pouring of the poison by the
appellant into the mouth of his wife. Assuming, for the sake of
arguments, that PW5 – Ravita and PW6 – Kavita had actually seen
the appellant pouring poison into the mouth of their mother through
the door and they had brought that fact to the notice of their maternal
Crl. Appeal No. 168-DB of 1999 3
uncle, he would have stated so to the police in the course of his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He did claim to have been so
told by his nieces (PW5 – Ravita and PW6 – Kavita) but he was
confronted with his statement Ex.PF where this fact was not found
mentioned. He could not offer any explanation for the omission of
that very relevant fact.
The conduct of PW5 – Ravita and PW6 – Kavita also
does not inspire confidence. Out of them, Ravita is not a child. She
claims to have very well understood the connotation of the act of
pouring of spray into the mouth of her mother by holding her nose. If
children of that age group find that their father has done the averred
act, they would not have been expected to go to sleep during night,
particularly when it is their own testimony that their father i.e. the
appellant left the house thereafter.
The defence presentation that the possibility of the
deceased having herself consumed poison under the stress of
adverse circumstances cannot altogether be ruled out. It is proved
on the record that the appellant and the deceased were tried in a
murder case. The deceased was acquitted. The appellant was
convicted. He was on bail under the orders of this Court. On the
relevant date, he came home under the influence of liquor and
demanded money from the deceased. He got enraged on account of
the absence of a favourable response from his wife. It would well be
that the stress of circumstances (i.e. a convicted husband who was a
big boozer and wanted her to procure money for his day-to-day
expenditure) forced the deceased to get away by ending her life.
Crl. Appeal No. 168-DB of 1999 4
In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal shall stand
allowed. The impugned finding of conviction shall stand set aside.
The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge.
( S.D. Anand )
Judge
July 03, 2008 ( Adarsh Kumar Goel )
vkd Judge
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes/No