IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqryd%20...%2058&yr=2010
Bail Application No.1104 of 2010
Ram Babu
....Petitioner
Through: Mr. C.M. Verma and Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocates
versus
State (NCT of Delhi) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Additional Standing Counsel for State
CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
O R D E R
17.06.2010
This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been made by the petitioner/
accused for bail in a case FIR No.954 of 2007 under Sections 498A/304B/302/34
IPC.
The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 2nd
February, 2010. This is a fresh bail application after examination of one
witness i.e. the doctor who recorded dying declaration. The first dying
declaration was made by the deceased in presence of the doctor and her brother
wherein she made no allegations about involvement of accused or any other person
in burning her. The deceased stated that while cooking meal in the morning, she
got burnt due to leakage of gas. However, in the later statement made before the
SDM, she stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law put her on fire.
The prosecution was asked about the investigation done so far on the fact
as to how the father-in-law and mother-in-law put her on fire with the help of
cooking gas since there was no kerosene stove. To this query, prosecution relied
upon the disclosre statement of the accused/petitioner wherein it is stated that
the gas pipe of the cylinder was taken off and the pipe was pointed towards the
deceased and the deceased was set on fire. This disclosure statement per se is
inadmissible under law as nothing was recovered in pursuant of the disclosure
statement made by the accused. The gas cylinder pipe and the other articles were
already lying in the kitchen in burnt condition.
Thus, this disclosure statement cannot be the basis of the story put forth by the prosecution. Even otherwise, if the pipe of a gas cylinder is removed from the gas stove, then the gas stored in the cylinder is free to come out of the pipe without regulating
knob attached to the stove. The gas is stored in gas cylinder in liquefied form
under high pressure and the moment the gas comes out of the cylinder where it is
in liquefied form under high pressure, into atmosphere, it is bound to expand
and spread all around. Any person holding a gas pipe if tries to lit a match
stick, the gas will catch fire instantly and spread in the entire room and the
person trying to burn other will have to burn himself too. He can save himself
only if he is protected by fire resistant clothes. It is not the case of the
prosecution that any other person got burnt in this incident of burning of the
deceased because of cooking gas.
It is submitted by the learned APP for State that the Court should not
appreciate the evidence at this stage while granting bail and CFSL expert was
yet to be examined. He also submits that if a gas pipe attached with the gas
cylinder is aimed at a person then that person only will get burnt. I consider
that this argument must fail. A person holding the pipe cannot control either
the flow of gas or spreading of gas into the area where gas pipe is opened.
As per laws of physics, the gas coming from high pressure to atmospheric pressure
or low pressure area will expand immediately and it will spread into the entire
area and it cannot be aimed like a water or kerosene oil stream and the person
lighting match stick will have to burn himself also. This theory of burning by
gas pipe, therefore, must be discarded.
The examination of CFSL expert is to prove the report. The report given
by CFSL expert is that there was no traces of kerosene, petrol or diesel in the
clothes sent to the CFSL. This does not help the prosecution in any manner and I
am sure that any expert having knowledge of science would also discard the
theory put forth by the prosecution that the gas pipe can be aimed towards one
particular person and he alone can be burnt, saving other person present in the
room.
In view of this fact, coupled with the fact that the first dying
declaration made by the deceased that she made no allegations that she was burnt
by the accused, I consider that the accused is entitled for grant of bail. The
petitioner/accused be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned.
The observations made hereinabove are prima facie observations and shall
not affect the merits of the case.
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
(SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA)
Vacation Judge
June 17, 2010
rd
Superb Judgement!
ReplyDeleteHail LD Mr Dhinra.