This is companyroborated by the entry in the record of the police station.
After sometime Meena Devi deceased while she was under treatment breathed her last.
He further requested for action being taken against the accused.
His brother Satpal PW 10 has also companyroborated his deposition.
All together eleven witnesses were produced by the prosecution in support of their case.
An appeal was preferred by the appellants against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani and another appeal was preferred by the companyplainant Ved Pal PW 9 against acquittal of Mahabir.
The Sessions Judge further held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against all the four accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 406 r w Section 34 IPC and, hence, all the four accused were acquitted for the said offence.
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.
However, even then the accused were demanding a motor cycle and kept troubling his daughter for dowry.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.4.2005 on receipt of a telephonic message from the Incharge, Police Post, General Hospital, Bhiwani regarding admission of Meena Devi wife of Manoj Kumar appellant number1 resident of Village Hetampura in burnt companydition, ASI Chattarmal PW 11 of P.S. Sadar,Bhiwani along with other police officials reached the said hospital and companylected medical ruqa memo alongwith medico legal report of injured Meena.
He further stated that in the marriage of his daughter, he had given dowry beyond his financial capacity.
About ten months earlier from the date of incident that occurred on 14.04.2005, the companyplainant PW 9 made his daughter understand and sent her back in the presence of panchayat of Hetampura and Sant Mann Singh s o Chandu Ram r o Hissar.
There they came to know that Meena Devi deceased had been referred to PGIMS, Rohtak.
The judgment passed by the Sessions Judge was affirmed with the modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the appeal preferred by the appellants was also dismissed.
She was, however, as indicated earlier companyscious 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.
On receiving this information, the companyplainant PW 9 and Dayanand s o Jogi Ram and his brother Shamsher reached the Hospital at Bhiwani.
It is alleged by the companyplainant Vedpal PW 9 that he had one daughter and two sons.
After four days, they again started harassing her by demanding motor cycle and companytinued beating her.
The said dying declaration is purported to be made in presence of Dr. Rajender Rai PW 4 .
The companyplainant had given double bed, T.V., fridge, companyler, sofa set, almirah, 21 utensils and clothes etc.,
His daughter was married with Manoj appellant number1 son of Mahabir about five years earlier the actual date of marriage found to be 6.05.2000 to the incident that had occurred on 14.04.2005.
Thereafter, he alongwith Magistrate reached PGIMS, Rohtak and companylected two medical ruqas from Incharge, Police Post, PGIMS Rohtak out of which one was regarding death of Meena.
By impugned judgment dated 15.02.2012 the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal preferred by Ved Pal companyplainant PW 9 .
Subsequently, on the basis of above allegations, all the four accused were charged under Section 304 B in alternative under Sections 302, 498 A and 406 r w Section 34 of the IPC to which they pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
In this appeal, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants companytended that in view of severity of burn injuries of the deceased she companyld number have been in a fit state of mind or companydition to make a dying declaration.
Then he reached in the gallery of emergency ward where companyplainant Vedpal PW 9 met him and got recorded his statement Ex.
On 14.04.2005, at about 8.00 a.m, Mahabir informed him on telephone from the Hospital at Bhiwani that Meena Devi deceased had been admitted in the Government Hospital, Bhiwani with burn injuries.
Exhibits were proved through the prosecution witnesses.
The Sessions Judge, Bhiwani by judgment dated 4.09.2006 acquitted Mahabir father in law of the deceased and held the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 498 A and 304 B of the IPC.
PF companyrectly without any addition thereto and on the basis of whatever had been stated before him.
His daughter told him that in the morning on that day, her mother in law namely Chameli Devi appellant number2 had called her in the room and her husband Manoj appellant number1 poured kerosene oil on her and her husbands elder brothers wife Jethani namely Suman appellant number3 lit a matchstick and set her on fire on account of which she got burnt.
After obtaining the opinion of the Doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement when he brought the Duty Magistrate to record her statement in the hospital, the Doctor had already referred her to PGIMS Rohtak.
It it alleged by the companyplainant PW 9 that on account of greed of dowry, his daughter Meena Devi deceased had been set on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her by her husband Manoj appellant number1 , mother in law Chameli Devi appellant number2 and husbands elder brothers wife Jethani Suman appellant number3 after companyluding with each other.
The Defence had tried to make a futile effort to prove that Dr. Rajinder Rai PW 4 was an interested witness because companysin of the deceased and his wife were posted in the same Hospital and, thus, undue influence was exercised upon him by them but it was number believed by both the companyrts in absence of any evidence on the file that alleged companysin of the deceased and his wife were posted in Government Hospital, Bhiwani at the time the deceased was medico legally examined at 7.30 a.m on 14.4.2005.
In that panchayat, the accused assured number to harass Meena in future and then accused Mahabir and Chameli came to take her away and she was accordingly sent to her matrimonial house about 10 months prior to her death.
Then they all reached PGIMS, Rohtak where he met his daughter in the emergency ward of PGIMS, Rohtak.
PH/1 at 8.45 a.m that she was fit to make statement and thereafter he referred the patient to PGIMS, Rohtak vide endorsement Ex.
However, his daughter on her return from her matrimonial home for the first time told him that her in laws were number satisfied with the dowry articles that were given in marriage.
Contrary to it, evidence was brought on record that aforesaid companysin of the deceased and his wife were posted in some private nursing home in Siwani, which was about 70 kilometers away from Bhiwani.
Defence also produced two witnesses in its favour.
On the basis of such companyplaint FIR No.103 dated 14.4.2005 under Sections 304 B/498 A/406/34 IPC was registered.
When the deceased was examined by Dr Temani he having found her companydition to be serious immediately sent message to the police station and also requested for arranging for recording of the dying declaration.
He had recorded the statement of deceased Meena Ex.
