Smt. Pushpawati And Others vs The State
1985 Latest Caselaw 389 Del

ORDER

1. The present application is for grant of bail to the petitioners who, according to the prosecution had committed the murder of Smt. Suman on the night between 8/9th August, 1985.

2. Smt. Suman was married to Raj Kishan Gujrati, petitioner 3 on 10th May 1984. She had been living with her husband since marriage. In the same house mother of the husband, who is petitioner 1, brother of the husband who is petitioner 2 and wife of petitioner 2 were also living. Smt. Vijay Laxmi is sister of the husband of the deceased. Vijay Laxmi is married to Jagat Narain Gujrati. Both Vijay Laxmi and Jagat Narain used to visit that house.

3. The deceased used to be harassed, maltreated and even beaten by her husband, her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law, Smt. Vijay Laxmi on the ground that she had not brought adequate dowry. Once, as the case of the prosecution is, a report was lodged by Mahesh, brother of the deceased, with the Anti-dowry Cell on 3rd July 1985. However, there was intervention of S/Shri Mool Chand Gupta and Brij Mohan Sharma and that report was withdrawn by Mahesh on 8th July 1985. It may be mentioned that Shri Brij Mohan Sharma is living adjacent to the place where Smt. Suman was residing along with her husband and relatives of the husband after marriage. Shri Mool Chand Gupta is a Municipal Councillor.

4. On the night between 8/9th August, 1985 Shri Brij Mohan Sharma was awakened and told that Smt. Suman had been burnt. He came along to the house. Father and brother of Smt. Suman were also informed. They reached at the spot. According to the prosecution, Smt. Suman made a detailed statement before Mahesh, her brother. That statement was read over before me. The relevant portion of that statement is that she was beaten by her in-laws, that thereafter Raj Kishan (her husband) poured kerosene oil on her body and her mother-in-law lit the fire and that when she, in order to save herself, started running away, she was stopped on the way by Brij Kishan petitioner 2 and Smt. Vijay Laxmi (sister of the husband).

5. The allegation of the prosecution is that Suman was taken to the hospital by her father, her brother, Shri Brij Mohan Sharma and Shri Mool Chand Gupta. However, the doctor who examined her, recorded that she was brought by her father. She was found to have 100% burns. Her dying declaration was also recorded by the police. After giving long history as to how she was mal-treated and how she was harassed and beaten because of not bringing adequate dowry, she told that on the night between 8/9th August 1985 some one poured oil on her and fire was lit on which she received burns. She also stated that she saw Jagat Prakash, husband of her sister-in-law going away at that time.

6. The third dying declaration was recorded by one S.D.M. at 1.45 p.m. on 9th August, 1985. That dying declaration was recorded in English and reads as under :-

"On the night of 9-8-1985 after 12.00 a.m. (mid-night) on the night while I came out from the room to the bath room then two or three persons came after me. Sister and brother-in-law came before and after their arrival I was gone to the bath room. My mother-in-law beat me and my husband Raj Kishan told me that Vijay, the sister-in-law and Jagat Parkash, brother-in-law told them all the facts and Vijay and Jagat also beat me in the bath room. Then some one poured kerosene oil on me. I could only see a man with Pyajama and Pyajama was worn by Raj Kishan and some other person lighted the matches over my body. Mr. Gopal Krishan, brother of Raj Kishan, Vijay Laxmi and Jagat Parkash Anna Bhai of Moradabad were present there and were asking for dowry. All other girls used to bring more dowry by neighbours and they were asking why you did not bring the dowry. I was wearing a synthetic saree and the fire was spread all over my body. I was married on 10-5-84 and no children. I was brought to hospital by Sri Brij Mohan Sharma, resident of the same street and Shri Mool Chand Gupta, Municipal Councillor and admitted. I was sleeping and mother-in-law and wife of Brij Kishan alias Gopal Krishan used to put Sindoor on body. Mrs. Vijay used to talk every thing to her mother and she would use to tell to my husband, with this my husband used to beat me. I was used to compelled to sleep with Jagat, brother-in-law. I cannot talk any more."

It is clear that the English is badly written and there is no good expression and clarity. May be it was on account of the fact that Smt. Suman deceased was not having clarity of expression because she was sinking at that time and that is why she stated at the end that she could not talk any more. It can also be that there was no proper translation in English if she was stating in Hindi. However, one thing is clear from this dying declaration coupled with such declaration before her brother Mahesh that she had implicated her husband Raj Kishan, his brother Gopal Krishan, his sister Vijay Laxmi and Jagat Parkash, Husband of Vijay Lakshmi and her mother-in-law who is petitioner 1.

In the dying declaration before S.D.M. name of one culprit is given as Gopal Krishan. It is stated by the Standing Counsel of the State, Sodhi Teja Singh that Brij Krishan, petitioner is also called Gopal Krishan.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Shri D. C. Mathur, Advocate has vehemently argued that a doubt as to who was culprit had been created, the benefit of which must go to the petitioners. He explained that dying declaration before the police did not name as to who had poured the oil and as to who had lit the fire and that, therefore, on basis of that doubt, the petitioners should be released on bail.

8. However, views are to be formed at the trial on the basis of taking into consideration of all the three dying declarations, the circumstances appearing on the record and the statements of witnesses cited by police who have to be examined. For instance, one witness who will be examined at the trial will be Shri Brij Mohan Sharma. His statement was recorded by police u/s 161, Cr.P.C. He gives the background as to how Smt. Suman was being mal-treated and beaten because Smt. Suman was unable to bring adequate dowry. He also stated as to how he was called and went to the place where Smt. Suman was burnt. Therefore, at this stage it will be difficult to rely upon the dying declaration before the police and discredit the dying declaration before the brother of the deceased, as well as before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

9. Under these circumstances, therefore, I am of the view that in such a case of gruesome murder, there is hardly any justification for grant of bail.

10. Whatever has been stated above shall not prejudice any of the parties at the trial and whatever observations have been made, they are only for the purposes of deciding this application for bail.

11. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Pushpawati, petitioner 1 is of the age of 60 years, that she is not having good health, that she is suffering from various ailments and that on that ground itself she may be granted bail. However, that matter should be pin pointedly put in a different application along with medical certificates and necessary documents. This has not been brought out in the present application. Hence if any fresh application is given, that matter will be considered in accordance with law as far as Smt. Pushpawati is concerned.

12. With the above observations, I dismiss the application.

13. Crl. Misc. (Main) 1003 of 1985 stands disposed of.

14. Application dismissed.