Delhi High Court
Amarjeet Kaur vs State on 1 September, 2014
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: August 28, 2014
% Judgment Delivered on: September 01, 2014
+ CRL.A. 306/1999
AMARJEET KAUR ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Avninder Singh, MS. Sumi
Anand, Advs.
versus
STATE .... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Amarjeet Kaur is convicted for the offence of murder of Surjit Kaur,
wife of Joginder Singh vide impugned judgment dated May 21, 1999 and
directed her to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of `300/- and in
default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year vide
the impugned order dated May 22, 1999.
2. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of two eye-witnesses
Manjit Kaur PW-1 and Narender Kaur PW-2 the daughters of the deceased.
Manjit Kaur who is the maker of FIR deposed before the Court that
Amarjeet Kaur was tenant in their house No.9/667, Kishan Dutt Gali,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Jasmit Kaur aged 3-4 years was the daughter of
Amarjeet Kaur. There used to be quarrels between her mother and Amarjeet
Kaur regarding children. On March 03, 1987 Jasmit Kaur had come to their
premises at about 12.30 PM and had gone back. Thereafter Amarjeet Kaur
came to her mother who was in the kitchen cooking food and complained
that her brother had beaten Jasmit Kaur. Her mother denied the allegation
due to which a quarrel took place between them. Her mother continued
cooking food but Amarjeet Kaur kept on abusing her and stated that she
would make a graveyard for her mother in the very same house. At that
time, Amarjit Kaur was standing outside the gate of their kitchen while their
mother was preparing the food. Amarjeet Kaur entered the kitchen, picked
up the cane containing kerosene oil from the kitchen and poured the same on
their mother resulting in their mother catching fire as she was cooking food
near the burning stove.
3. This version of Manjit Kaur is corroborated by Narender Kaur, the
elder daughter of deceased Surjit Kaur.
4. The cause of death due to burn injuries by kerosene oil is not in
dispute as MLC Ex.PW-18/A records smell of kerosene oil and post-mortem
report notes dermo-epidermal burns present all over the body except lower
part of abdomen, perineum, upper part of medial aspect of both thighs, both
gluteal regions. According to the doctor, 85% of the total body surface was
burnt. The deceased was declared unfit for statement thus no dying
declaration could be recorded.
5. PW-4 Joginder Singh, the husband of Surjit Kaur who got her
admitted in the hospital stated that when his wife was being removed by one
Dalip Kumar in the taxi for hospital, he also boarded the same and on the
way his wife informed about the quarrel that took place between the children
and that while she was cooking food in the kitchen, Amarjeet Kaur came
from behind and poured kerosene oil on her and she caught fire while she
was sitting just near the burning stove. This dying declaration by Joginder
Singh cannot be believed because when the deceased reached the hospital,
the doctor declared her not fit for statement. Moreover, Dalip Kumar, who
was removing the deceased to hospital when her husband Joginder Singh
came and sat in the taxi has stated that on the way Joginder Singh enquired
from his wife about the incident but the condition of his wife was not good
at that time and she could not tell him anything about the incident.
6. One more aspect which needs to be highlighted is that the perusal of
the photographs of kitchen show that no food was found to be cooked rather
the utensils for cooking were clean and kept on one side though some
chappatis already made are lying there. The case of the prosecution is that
while the stove was on, the deceased caught fire after kerosene oil was
poured by Amarjeet Kaur on Surjit Kaur. However, the same is not
sufficient to belie the version of two eye-witnesses, who were present at the
spot.
7. The issue which arises is whether offence of Amarjeet Kaur is
punishable under Section 302 IPC or is culpable homicide not amounting to
murder punishable under Section 304 IPC. Admittedly, as per the
prosecution case, a quarrel was going on between the deceased and
Amarjeet Kaur due to the fact that the son of the deceased had beaten the
daughter of Amarjeet Kaur. Heated arguments were going on between both
of them. Amarjeet Kaur was not armed with any weapon and in that heated
moment between the two she took up the cane of kerosene oil lying there
and poured the same on Surjit Kaur. She did not even lit the fire but since
Surjeet Kaur was near the fire, her clothes caught fire and she was burnt.
Since the act of Amarjeet Kaur was neither pre-planned and took place on
the spur of moment due to heated exchange of words but Amarjeet Kaur has
to be attributed the knowledge that being near the stove there was every
likelihood that the clothes of the deceased would catch the fire on kerosene
oil being poured, the offence committed by Amarjeet Kaur would be
punishable under Section 304 IPC.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment convicting
Amarjeet Kaur for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the order
on sentence directing her to undergo imprisonment for life. Amarjeet Kaur
is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 IPC instead. Before
Amarjeet Kaur was granted bail, she had suffered incarceration for a period
of nearly 4½ years and was granted bail because her husband was suffering
from mental retardation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the sentence of Amarjeet Kaur is modified to the period already
undergone.
9. The appeal is consequently disposed of.
10. T.C.R. be returned.
11. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail
Tihar for his record.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
'v mittal'
