9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless. 3. Time and place of unnatural death, of Asha Rani, by burning, at her in laws' small house with at least six inmates, could not and was not disputed. Both the trial Judge and the High Court held that the prosecution succeeded in proving this. It was further found by them that she did not die of accident nor she committed suicide. Burning by kerosene stove or gas or even firewood may not be unusual due to synthetic wear which has become very common. But when post mortem report indicates, as was in this case, that smell of kerosene was coming from body and even burnt hairs smelt kerosene then it not only belied the statement of her sister-in-law (Nand) that she was burnt while making tea but it ruled out remotest possibility of accident. That is why the findings were not seriously challenged by the appellant. 4. Asha Rani was thus murdered. Why? Sadly for ₹ 5,000/- or an auto rickshaw which her father of seven daughters could not afford even though he suffered the ignominy of her being beaten in his presence by her in laws at his own house. Bride ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Since it was a serious case he sent for Dr. Temani and Dr. Patrisia the medical jurist. He stated that Dr. Temani examined her first and Dr. Patrisia came later. He stated that Asha Rani was conscious from 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. He further admitted unequivocally that when she was admitted she could give clear cut answer of whatever was asked from her. He thus stated three vital things, one preparation of bed head ticket and entries made on it, second about the sequence in which the doctors examined the patient and third that the victim was conscious who could understand and give answers of whatever questions were asked to her. In the bed head ticket which was deposed to be written by him it was clearly mentioned that Asha Rani complained of misbehaviour of her brother-in-law. He made an unsuccessful attempt to wash off its effect by stating that on his inquiry as to who burnt her she did not disclose name of anyone. Nothing turns on this part of the statement as he could not deny the entry in the bed head ticket. No further need be said firstly because he was a student only and secondly circumstances do not lie. However if the entry in bed head ticket and the statement on thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statements of Dr. Patricia and Dr. Temani.' This approach of the Judge apart from being faulty was contrary to the rule and appreciation of evidence. The High Court after going into detail and examining the evidence of each of these witnesses has found that there was no material contradiction either on the question of presence of the two doctors or the sequence in which she was examined by them or in respect of recording of bed head ticket and the injury report. Dr. Patricia in her statement stated that in her presence when Dr. Temani asked Asha Rani as to who burnt her she told that her brother-in-law (Devar) Ashok had burnt her. Dr. Temani stated the same. But the two were disbelieved because Dr. Themani in her cross-examination stated that when he got the injury report recorded by compounder Dhirender Jain, Dr. Patrisia went away and he got the endorsement of Dr. Patrisia on the desk outside the chamber. The High Court pointed out that there was no material contradiction on the two aspect namely the disclosure of name by Asha Ran in her presence on asking of Dr. Themani and the endorsement in the injury report. Even the sequence of examination by Dr. Saxena then by Dr. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on she was given injections of morphia etc. so that she may be fully quiet and her speech would not be possible and she might not have felt terrible pain. This also appears to be surprising that if she was really able to speak, why did she only say that her brother-in-law Ashok burnt her and why also she not say as to why she was burnt and how did he burn her. If for sometime she would not have told this, even then there should have been an anxiety to Dr. Patricia and Dr. Themani and they should have asked her as to how and why she was burnt but nothing like this happened and possibly in a corner of Ex. P-4, where endorsements A to B have been made, over there so much could be written. Therefore it appears that the endorsements A to B have been got written later on when so needed. Needless to say that each and every word of this is based neither on appreciation of testimony of the witnesses nor on consideration of material on record but on imagination and assumption. For instance the finding that from statement of Dr. Saxena it was clear that when Asha Rani was brought to ward she was unconscious is against testimony of Dr. Saxena and is not supported by any material whatsoever. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stance in it. When the deceased was examined by Dr. Themani he having found her condition to be serious immediately sent message to the police station and also requested for arranging for recording of the dying declaration. This is corroborated by the entry in the record of the police station. But the Inspector of Police came after 11.00 when the injection of morphine had already been administered to lessen the agony of the patient who thereafter became unconscious. She was, however, as. indicated earlier conscious between 10.00 to 11.00 during which period the bed head ticket was written by Dr. Saxena and the entries were made on the injury report. The Judge did not doubt the recording of the bed head ticket that the deceased complained of misbehaviour by her brother-in-law. Even the learned Counsel could not point out any infirmity or reason to discard it except that by mere word, brother in law it was not established that it was appellant, i.e., the effort was to make out a case of doubt. That could have been possible if that entry could have stood alone. But it stands not only corroborated but clarified by identifying the appellant by entry in injury report as the brother-in-la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
