MANU/SC/0147/2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5802 of 2018)

Decided On: 03.03.2021

Appellants: Satpal Vs. Respondent: State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Accused in Session Case No. 20 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05th September, 2016, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby, his conviction and order of sentence, for offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was confirmed.

3. On information received from J.P. Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, regarding admission of the deceased, Pooja Rani, on account of burn injuries, a case was registered in FIR No. 112 on 20.03.2008, initially Under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and on death of Pooja Rani i.e. on 27.03.2008, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. On receipt of information, Mr. Ishwar Singh, A.S.I. of Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar, went to the J.P. Hospital along with other police officials and noticed that the deceased suffered 90 per cent injuries and at that stage, she was declared fit to make statement. On the request of the police, Ms. Kumud Gugnani, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, recorded the statement of deceased, Pooja Rani.

4. In the declaration, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, the deceased has stated that the Appellant/Accused has poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze. After investigation, Charge-Sheet was filed against the Appellant/Accused and three others namely Kamlesh, Mitter Sain and Anjali, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased. However, vide order dated 12.08.2008, the other Accused persons were discharged and charge was framed against the Appellant herein, for offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To prove the charge framed by the Appellant herein, the prosecution examined C. Narender Kumar as PW-1, C. Ram Kumar as PW-2, Jai Pal, ASI as PW-3, EHC Prem Singh as PW-4, Varsha Rani as PW-5, Kashmiri Lal as PW-6, Pyara Singh, Inspector as PW-7, Jai Kishan, ASI as PW-8, Dr. Manisha Singh as PW-9, EHC Satwinder Singh as PW-10, Raj Kumar, SI as PW-11, Lal Singh, ASI as PW-12, Dr. Amit Goel as PW-13, Balraj Singh, ASI as PW-14, Ishwar Singh, ASI as PW-15 and Kumud Gugnani as PW-16.

6. When the statement of the Appellant Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was recorded, the Appellant denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he was falsely implicated inasmuch as the deceased, Pooja Rani, was under a misconception that he had illicit relations with Anjali (sister-in-law). On behalf of the Appellant/Accused, no witnesses were examined.

7. The Trial Court, by appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, by judgment and order dated 03.11.2009, convicted the Appellant for offence, punishable Under Section 302 ........