State vs Pritam Singh
2007 Latest Caselaw 149 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Criminal Appeal 47 of 1990 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.122/1985, F.I.R. No. 98/1985 registered at police station Janakpuri whereby the learned Judge vide his judgment and order dated 15.09.1988 acquitted the accused of all charges. Being aggrieved of the acquittal State has filed the present appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:

The case of the prosecution is that accused Pritam Singh had adopted the daughter of Shashi Bala and was often visiting her house No.WZ-83A, Shaheed Chand Marg, Uttam Nagar. On 11.3.1985 at about 10.45 a.m. he went to the house of Shashi Bala when her children were away to school and her husband was away to the place of his work. He poured kerosene oil on Shashi Bala and set her on fire. The residents of the mohalla were attracted and came there. They saw Pritam Singh inside the house. SI Ved Pal Singh also reached there on receiving information that a woman had been burnt. He recorded the statement of Shashi Bala and sent her to the hospital. She died in the hospital on the same day at about 1.00 p.m. Doctor on post mortem examination found that the death was due to shock resulting from burns. The burns were 100 per cent. The shoes of the accused and some other articles scattered in the house of Shashi Bala were lifted by the police. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested and after investigation challan was filed in the Court.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home its case examined 22 witnesses. PW-3 is Hoshiar Singh, Head Constable, Police Photographer. He deposes to the effect that he took photographs, Exhibit PW-3/A-1 to PW-3/ A-7. PW-18, S.I. Tarif Singh, states that he was in the Control Room when information was received at about 11.15 a.m. from Avinash Khanna that a woman had received burn injuries at Shaheed Chand Marg, Uttam Nagar. This message was conveyed to the police post Uttam Nagar. PW-16, ASI Azad Singh was deputed to collect the CFSL report while PW-19, ASI Dharam Pal is the Mohurrar Malkhana who deposes to the effect that the exhibits kept by him remained in tact.

4. PW-1, Dr.T.L.Ramani had conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Shashi Bala. He deposes that there was no smell of kerosene oil from the scalp hair. Burns were 100 per cent. There were no injuries around the genitals and no foreign material in the vagina. Burn injuries were ante mortem and death was due to shock of burns.

5. PW-8, Prem Nath father of the deceased had come to Delhi after learning of the incident. He identified the dead body of Shashi Bala. PW-9, Subhash Chand deposed that Shashi Bala was his wife. She had returned from her parents' house on 10.03.1985. Pritam Singh, accused was friendly to the family and had adopted one of the four daughters of Shashi Bala soon after her birth. The witness was in his office when the incident took place and came back and saw accused in custody of the police. He and his wife had no complaint against the accused rather all his daughters were attached to the accused and the youngest one was given up in adoption out of love and affection. He also deposed that Pritam Singh, sometimes used to stay in their house during the night and that on 10.03.1985 the accused had taken food with the family and nothing unusual happened.

6. PW-10, Om Prakash another neighbour stated that he is the witness to the seizure memo of the clothes of the accused. PW-4, Om Wati claims that she was first to reach the spot and secure the accused. She stated that at 10.00 or 11.00 a.m. she was taking water from public hydrant when she saw smoke emitting from the house of Shashi Bala. She called out Shashi Bala but received no response. The door was bolted from inside. She saw, Pritam Singh, accused inside the room, through the openings in the door. The witness chained the door from outside and when Pritam Singh opened it from inside she also opened it from outside. She saw Shashi Bala burning near the room in the gallery. Pritam Singh tried to run but was caught hold by this witness who pushed him inside and closed the door. Thereafter she raised hue and cry, upon which Nand Lal, Balwan Singh, Ramoo and others came there. Police was called and Shashi Bala made a statement Exhibit PW- 4/A wherein she stated that Pritam Singh had set her on fire.

7. PW-5, Balwan Singh claimed that on the fateful day he was passing through the lane with his Buffalo when he learnt that a fire had broken in the house of Shashi Bala. He went there and saw smoke coming out of the house where the woman had been burnt. Many people collected and the public caught hold of a man but this witness refused to identify the accused as being the man caught by the public. He goes on to depose that the woman had died and the police came afterwards. He also claims that the injured did not make any statement to any person. Similarly, Nand Lal, PW-6 states that he was at his house when he heard a noise that a fire had broken out in the house of Subhash Chand, Masterji. He went to that place and saw a woman lying burnt. He did not talk to the woman. Many people had come there. Nobody was apprehended in his presence. Police came there after sometime and dispersed the gathering.

8. PW-17, Avinash Khanna, states that he was present at his shop at Uttam Nagar when he heard a noise that a fire had broken in the house of Subhash Chand Sharma. He went there and found Shashi Bala crying with burns. Pritam Singh accused was also there. He was trying to come out from the back door and a woman had blocked his passage. He stated that the wife of Subhash Chand Sharma was in great pain and did not speak anything. He called the police. The police came and and removed the injured to the hospital.

9. Ram Prakash @ Ramu is PW-7. He states that at about 9.30 a.m. he heard noise that fire had broken out in the house of Subhash Chand Sharma and people had already collected there. Om Wati told this witness that Pritam Singh was trying to run away. Ram Prakash and others caught hold of the accused. Police was called and his statement recorded. Shashi Bala told the police that Pritam Singh had set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil. Shashi Bala was taken to the hospital and on the way she continued to say that Pritam Singh had set her ablaze. Ramesh is taxi driver who took Shashi Bala to the hospital. In his statement he claims that Shashi Bala did not make any statement nor did she implicate Pritam Singh Dadiwala.

10. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence of witnesses held that Ram Prakash and Om Wati were not reliable witnesses. Trial Court held that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that accused Pritam Singh had burnt Shashi Bala by pouring kerosene oil on her. Ram Prakash, PW-7, was in the house of Shashi Bala. He could have seen Pritam Singh doing so and could have prevented him from doing so. His evidence that he had gone there with his tools to repair electricity at 9.30 a.m. does not inspire confidence since he had ample opportunity to prevent Pritam Singh from assaulting Shashi Bala. The accused was empty handed and had no weapon while Ram Prakash was armed with his tools. The Court also held that the Prosecution has sought to link Pritam Singh with the shoes lying scattered to show that there was scuffle in the house between the accused and the deceased and he was the only one with her who could have set her on fire. The Court held that this inference cannot be drawn since Shashi Bala was a much younger woman and was better built than Pritam Singh. She would not have silently allowed the accused to pour kerosene oil on her and burn her. Shashi Bala would definitely have made attempts to save herself and even caught hold of the accused had he poured kerosene oil on her. The Court also held that there were no injuries on Pritam Singh which belies the Prosecution's version that it was Pritam Singh who had poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze inside the house of the deceased. It also held that if Om Wati is to be believed and she was capable of pushing Pritam Singh into the house and prevent him from running, Shashi Bala was much stronger and better built and would never have suffered burns at the hands of Pritam Singh. It appears that neither Ramu nor Om Wati was present and Shashi Bala was alone in the house when she set herself on fire. Many persons had assembled and the Police was called. Pritam Singh was roughed up by the Police and other persons and his clothes were torn. The Police had him medically examined. The accused had bruises on him due to being beaten up by the public at the spot. The MLC of Pritam Singh is timed at 6.45 p.m. on 11.02.1985 but he is also stated to have been arrested at 7.00 p.m. from the spot of occurrence. This could not have happened since the spot of occurrence is twenty miles away from the hospital where Pritam Singh was examined. It is not possible within fifteen minutes to have reached the spot to arrest Pritam Singh. The arrest is false.

11. The Court held that from the medical evidence it appears that semen was present in the vagina of Shashi Bala. The same did not match with that of Pritam Singh. There was also no motive of the accused having caused burn injuries to Shashi Bala.

12. With the aid of learned Counsel, we have very carefully gone through the evidence on record. A perusal whereof shows that Pritam Singh was very fond of the family of Shashi Bala. The trust and confidence between the two was sufficient to enable Shashi Bala to give in adoption her youngest daughter to Pritam Singh. Pritam Singh was regular visitor to the house of Shashi Bala which appears to have resulted in jealousy amongst the neighbours. Ram Prakash and Om Wati, it appears, have exploited the situation and implicated Pritam Singh falsely. The house of Pritam Singh was close by and he, being on visiting terms, seeing the smoke bellowing from the house of Sashi Bala, was naturally attracted. A large number of people had already collected there. Om Wati and Ram Prakash appear to have swayed the crowd against the accused. A false arrest was shown at 7.00 p.m. from the house when Pritam Singh was, in fact, being examined at the hospital at 6.45 p.m. Nand Lal as also Balwan Singh, prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that they were present at the scene before the Police came and that Shashi Bala made no statement to the Police. The so-called dying declaration also does not name Pritam Singh but refers to Dadiwala. Surely, Shashi Bala who had given her child for adoption to Pritam Singh, knew his name and could have stated so rather than giving a description of Pritam Singh as Dadiwala. Merely, because shoes that fit Pritam Singh were lying in the house of the deceased is hardly evidence enough to convict him. There is evidence on record that Pritam Singh used to stay overnight at the house of Shashi Bala and her husband and that he was a frequent visitor. There is nothing to show that the shoes in the house were not of the husband of the deceased or that they did not fit the husband of the deceased. We also note that in the MLC there is no evidence as to kerosene oil being present in the scalp hair of the deceased which certainly would belie the story put forth by Om Wati and/or the prosecution and/or the dying declaration that Shashi Bala had been set ablaze by Pritam Singh after pouring kerosene oil on her. There is nothing put before us by learned Counsel for the State which shows that the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse or that the conclusion arrived at is contrary to the evidence on record. We also find that this is not a case where it could be held that it was not possible for the Trial Court to have arrived at a conclusion to acquit the accused.

13. In the foregoing circumstances we uphold the decision of the Trial Court and dismiss Criminal Appeal 47 of 1990.