1. This is an unfortunate case where Bharat Bhushan - the appellant has been convicted for having scorched his own wife - Smt. Lata Rani. The case was registered on the statement of Kushal Kumar - the son of the unfortunate couple.
2. This young son is a lad of 14 years. He told Assistant Sub-Inspector - Sukhdev Singh (PW 4) that his father who used to work as an Electrician "had fallen in bad company". He had stopped working. He had met with an accident. His leg was fractured. His grand-mother (appellant''s mother) "who had died one year ago, had executed a will of her house in favour of" her daughter-in-law Lata Rani. His "father used to give beatings to ... mother and harass her to dispose of this house, which was accordingly sold. Thereafter, a small plot was purchased in the Mohalla, half of which was sold and in the remaining portion a house was built. He used to ask .... mother to sell the said house also ..... father used to sit idle in the house. He was not doing any work. We being poor persons used to make both ends meet by working as labourers. Today, in the evening at about 6.30 p.m., my father and mother were quarrelling in the kitchen and he was asking my mother to dispose of this house". The mother protested. On this, the "father poured kerosene oil lying in a container of ghee on my mother and set her on fire with a match stick lying nearby and he immediately took my mother in his grip and told her that he would not allow her to escape by going outside the house". People gathered. Effort was made to save her. She, however, died due to burns.
3. The occurrence had taken place at 6.30 p.m. on January 8, 1994. On the basis of the statement of Kushal Kumar, a Diary Report had been recorded at 7.40 p.m. The formal FIR Ex. PE/2 was recorded at 8.10/9/10 p.m. The inquest report was prepared by Assistant Sub-Inspector - Sukhdev Singh. It is Ex. PB. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Prem Nath Dutta (PW 1) at 2.30 p.m. on the next day. The death was due to "hypovolemic shock which was due to burn injuries ........ sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature."
4. The oral testimony consists of the statement of Kushal Kumar (PW2) - the son of the appellant. He reiterated the statement made by him on the day of the occurrence before the police. In cross-examination, it was suggested that the mother had caught fire while she was preparing meals on a stove. The suggestion was denied. It was also suggested that the accused had tried to put off the fire and while doing so, he had burnt his clothes and sustained injuries on hands, legs and abdomen. The witness had denied this and asserted that the accused had "sustained the injuries as he was trying to catch hold of my mother to obstruct her from going outside". Harpal Singh alias Mintu, the President of the Mohalla Sudhar Committee appeared as PW3. He corroborated the statement of PW2 in all material particulars. In cross-examination, he stated that "the accused was addicted to drinking and used to purchase lottery tickets". He admitted that the accused had burn injuries on his hands and was sent by the police to the Hospital at about 10 p.m. Assistant Sub-Inspector Sukhdev Singh who conducted the investigation appeared as PW4. He had prepared the inquest report, the rough site plan and had sent the dead body for post-mortem.
5. The appellant in his statement u/s 313 denied the allegations and stated that he had got up on hearing the cries of his wife. On coming out, he saw that Smt. Lata was lying dead due to burn injuries. He further stated that he is handicapped. He walks with the aid of crutches. Leaving the crutches, he had fallen upon his wife to save her. In the process, he had received burn injuries on his hands and abdomen. He had also examined two witnesses in defence.
6. Surinder Singh, Clerk, office of the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar had appeared as DW 1 to say that the Bed Head Ticket had been given to the police. Dr. Ajay Sahni, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar appeared as DW 2. He stated that Ex. DB is the photostate copy of the Bed Head Ticket. He had found burn injuries on both the hands of the appellant. There were two lacerated wounds on the occiput of the skull. Stitching of these two injuries was done. In cross-examination, he admitted that the burns on both the hands could have been sustained by catching hold of the person who had caught fire.
7. This is the whole evidence.
8. Ms. Baljit Kaur, counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution story is improbable. Thus, the appellant should be acquitted. The claim made on behalf of the appellant was controverted by Dr. A. R. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
9. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant was not working. He used to remain idle. His own mother had executed a will by which she had bequeathed her house to her daughter-in-law. This single fact shows that all was not well with the appellant. Otherwise, the mother would have preferred her son to the daughter-in-law. It is also established that the appellant had forced the deceased to sell that house. A new plot was purchased. Half of this plot was also sold. A new house was constructed. The appellant wanted even that house to be sold. The wife Smt. Lata Rani had resisted. She paid a heavy price for her resistance. The appellant poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. These facts have been given by none else than the son of the appellant himself. He could have no reason to tell a lie or withhold the truth.
10. Ms. Baljit Kaur contended that Kushal Kumar (PW2) is only 14 years old. It is not safe to depend upon his testimony so as to convict the appellant.
11. We are unable to accept this contention. A perusal of the record shows that the learned trial Judge had posed various questions to the witness. It is only after hearing the answers that the Judge had felt satisfied that the witness understood the sanctity of the oath to be administered to him. On perusal of the record, we are satisfied that the witness was intelligent. He understood the questions and the sanctity of the oath. Thus, his testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground of his age.
12. On a persual of the statement of the witness, we find that he has given graphic details regarding the sequence of events. It appears that he was genuinely hurt about the manner in which his father had treated his mother. He had, therefore, not hesitated to tell the truth. He was not tempted to save his father. When asked about the burn injuries sustained by the father, he had categorically stated the correct position and pointed out that these were caused as he had tried to obstruct her from going outside.
13. The testimony of eye witness has been fully corroborated by the statement of Harpal Singh (PW3). He is the President of the Mohalla Sudhar Committee. He had no animus against the appellant. He had no interest in any one except in the welfare of the residents of the street. He has stated that the appellant was addicted to liquor. He used to beat his wife. She had complained to him. He was got arrested by the police twice. He used to tell his wife to sell the house. The entire testimony of PW2 has been fully corroborated by the witness. We do not entertain even the least suspicion about the truthfulness of the statements.
14. Ms. Baljit Kaur contended that even the appellant had sustained injuries. It is undoubtedly so. However, there is nothing to indicate that the deceased had given the injuries. As stated by Kushal Kumar, the appellant appears to have made an attempt to stop the deceased from going out of the house. He had caught hold of her. In the process, he had burnt his hands. On account of the handicap, the possibility of his having slipped and sustained injuries on the occiput cannot be ruled out. However, these injuries do not militate against the act alleged to have been committed by him.
15. No other point has been raised.
16. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is consequently, dismissed.
17. Appeal dismissed.
