S.C. Agarwal, J.@mdashParcha filed by Shri Lokendra Pratap Singh and Ashutosh Pratap Singh, advocates on behalf of opposite party No. 2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State, as well as Shri Lokendra Pratap Singh and Ashutosh Pratap Singh, as counsel for opposite party No. 2.
2. This revision under Sections 397 and 401, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Firozabad in S.T. No. 579 of 2012, State v. Arun Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2012 pertaining to Police Station North. District Firozabad whereby the application for discharge u/s 227, Cr. P.C. filed on behalf of accused revisionist Smt. Saroj Devi was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that revisionist is the mother-in-law of the deceased. In her dying declaration, the deceased stated that she was asked by her mother-in-law to sweep the roof and on the roof, she poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. It was contended that from dying declaration, offence u/s 304, I.P.C. is not disclosed against the revisionist.
4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party supported the impugned orders.
5. The dying declaration of the deceased cannot be seen in isolation. It has to be considered alongwith other surrounding circumstances and evidence. The victim died within a period of 18 months from her marriage in her matrimonial house by burn injuries. There are specific allegations in the first information report against all the accused that they used to harass the deceased on account of demand of Rs. 1,50,000 as dowry to start a business. The deceased had also disclosed to her father on mobile phone three days prior to the incident that the accused persons were conspiring to kill her so that her husband remarry again.
6. Considering the entire material on record, at this stage, no case for discharge is made out. The application for discharge has been rightly rejected by the Sessions Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is a lady. In case the applicant surrenders before the court concerned within three weeks from today and applies for bail, her prayer for bail be considered by the courts below expeditiously.
