High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdish Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 February, 2009
Criminal Misc. No.M-32750 of 2008                               -1-

                                ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
              AT CHANDIGARH

                        Criminal Misc. No.M-32750 of 2008
                        Date of decision : 18.2.2009

Jagdish Singh                                            ....Petitioner

                        Versus
State of Punjab and another                              ...Respondents

                                ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

Present:    Mr.B.S.Bhasaur, Advocate for the petitioner

            Mr. H.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

            Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with
            Ms. Meenakshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2.



S. D. ANAND, J.

This Court allowed the regular bail plea of the

respondent/accused in case FIR No.191 dated 21.12.2007 under Sections

302/IPC, Police Station, Dhuri, District Sangrur by recording the following

order:-

“It is common ground that the deceased made three dying

declarations. The first two dying declarations were made

before the Medical Officer at different points of time; while the

third dying declaration was recorded by a Judicial Officer. In

the course of the first statement (at the time of admission to

Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana), the

deceased informed that she caught fire while she was
Criminal Misc. No.M-32750 of 2008 -2-

****

cooking food at her house. ( “alleged r/o burns when pt. Was

cooking food at house and gas leaked and it caught fire and

pt.’s clothes caught fire as told by pt.” In the course of the

second statement made by the deceased on 16.12.2007 at

1.00 P.M., she accused her husband and her brother in law

(non-applicant) to have set her afire as they felt irritated by her

repeated plea to her husband to refrain from indulging in

booze. It is only in the course of last dying declaration that

she accused the petitioner-father-in-law of having caught hold

of her hands while her husband and brother-in-law set her

afire.

Without expressing any opinion on merits, the petitioner is

allowed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur/Duty Magistrate.”

The complainant, thereafter, filed a plea for cancellation of the

bail by raising the averment that the deceased had made only one dying

declaration and that too before the Judicial Magistrate. The further

averment, in the context, was that there was wrong factual presentation on

behalf of the respondent-accused that there were other two dying

declaration made by the deceased before the Medical Officer as well.

Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-

accused, has shown to the Court photo-copies of the hospitalisation record

maintained by Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana. There is

an endorsement dated 16.12.2007 wherein the treating Doctor attributed

to the deceased a statement that she caught when she was cooking food

at the house and there was leakage of gas. He has also shown to the

Court photocopy of the above record dated 16.12.2007 at 1.00 P.M. where
Criminal Misc. No.M-32750 of 2008 -3-

****

the patient informed the Doctor that her brother-in-law sprinkled kerosene

oil over her and her husband set her afire by lighting the match stick

thereafter when she was remonstrating with the latter about his liquor

habits. It may be noticed here that respondent accused is father-in-law of

deceased lady.

This Court, while allowing the regular bail plea, noticed that

the father-in-law-respondent-accused came to be accused by the

deceased in the context only in her 3rd dying declaration and she did not

attribute any role to him at the time of first two dying declaration which she

made before the treating Doctor. It is neither here nor there for the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, to argue that the alleged

first two dying declaration cannot be relied upon because the treating

Doctor had not obtained the signatures or thumb impression of the

deceased thereunder.

That is a matter which shall be adjudicated upon by the

learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence which is adduced by the party

to the prosecution at the trial.

The plea for cancellation of bail is denuded of merit and is

ordered to be dismissed.

February 18, 2008                                     (S. D. ANAND)
Pka                                                        JUDGE