- (1.) This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 316 of 2014, u/s 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Dholana, District- Kasganj.
(2.) Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Hement Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
(3.) It appears that the incident took place on 1.8.2014 at 5.30 P.M. in village-Firozpur, P.S.-Dholana, District Kashganj in which the deceased is said to have been set ablaze by the accused persons as a result of which after batling for his life for quite a few days, he died on 10.8.2014. It was thereafter on 11.8.2014 that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged by the father of the deceased at 6.15 P.M. at P.S.-Dholana, District-Kashganj. According to the F.I.R. the incident is said to have been witnessed by Natthu Singh Yadav, Om Prakash and Mohd. Akbar. It also appears that a dying declaration was also recorded by the Magistrate on the same day of the incident. Submission of the counsel is that according to the version given in the dying declaration, it was stated by the deceased that he was set ablaze at his own house when he was alone there. It was further stated by him that the applicant along with his other family members, who are co-accused, came to his house and put him on fire. It was further stated by him that thereafter he rushed towards the 'kundi' (tub) of the tube-well and jumped in the same in order to quench his fire. Submission is that there is no ambiguity in the statement of the deceased that the incident had taken placed at his own house. The argument is that on the next day of lodging the F.I.R. that is to say on 12.8.2014 certain witnesses of the village gave the eye witness account of the incident to the investigating officer and the names of these witnesses were Chandra Pal, Kuldeep and Gopal. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of these witnesses, copy whereof has been annexed as annexure no. 7 to the bail application. According to the version given by these independent witnesses, an entirely different story came out. It was stated by them that at the time of incident, the deceased was in an inebriated condition and he was carrying a cane of kerosene oil with him. Thereafter, he went to the disputed plot with regard to which there existed previous enmity in between the deceased and the applicant and then there he himself sprinkled kerosene oil on him and then ignited the same with a match stick. The villagers tried to dissuade him from doing so and also tried to take away the match box but they did not succeed and the clothes of the deceased caught fire. It was thereafter that the deceased rushed towards the aforesaid 'kundi' and jumped into it to quench the fire. It was specifically denied that the accused-applicant or the other co-accused persons had any hand in committing the incident. The details of the dispute over the land was also narrated by the witness Chandra Pal and almost the same version was reiterated by another witness Kuldeep, who also gave the version that the incident took place on the disputed plot which was the apple of discord between the parties and had resulted in lot of bad blood amongst them. The third witness Gopal also confirmed the place of occurrence to be on the disputed plot and not in the house of the deceased. Theory of self immolation was also repeated by the aforesaid third witness again. There is hardly any substantial difference in the versions given by these three eye witnesses. Submission is that the other witnesses of the F.I.R. did not come forward to support the prosecution version earlier but subsequently, after a long gap of time that is to say on 5.11.2014 and 7.11.2014, almost three months after the occurrence, they tried to corroborate the version of the F.I.R. and the dying declaration. Contention is that the diagonal contradictions between the version of the F.I.R. or the dying declaration vis. a vis. the eye witnesses account of the occurrence given by the independent witnesses of the village, deflates the testimonial worth of the dying declaration very substantially and it cannot be said with certainty that the version of dying declaration contains an unvarnished truth. Further submission is that though the incident had taken place on 1.8.2014 but the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 11.8.2014 which is also a highly belated lodging of the F.I.R. and the prosecution has no very adequate explanation for the same. Counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to site plan to show that the house of the deceased is nowhere around the place of occurrence which has been marked by sign (X) on the disputed plot and not in the house. Counsel has emphasized that the distance between the house of the deceased and the disputed plot is more than two furlongs and this fact was also averred in para-17 of the affidavit filed along with the bail application. Submission is that actually the aforesaid disputed plot had earlier resulted into a lot of bickering and squabbles between the deceased and the accused and it appears from the statements of co-villagers that the deceased had developed an extreme sense of frustration because of the same and was feeling badly aggrieved and used to think that the accused persons were not handing out to him a fair deal. Because of the same grouse, according to the counsel, the deceased took the extreme step of self immolation and probably he was also prompted by an instinct that by doing so he shall get the occasion to bring the accused persons under boiling waters. Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of co-villagers, which have already been referred to above, in which they have also expressed the same view. Submission is that it is also quite possible that as the deceased was drunk and inebriated, he must not have been capable of clear thinking and probably he could not have the correct assessment of the situation as to how hazardous and perilous was that act or that the same may go to the extent of endangering his life. The contention is that may be he was incapable to understanding the grave consequences of his own act. Further submission is that the statements of co-villagers recorded on the very next day of the incident and the sharp contradiction transpiring from them with regard to the place of occurrence itself and with regard to the entire manner of occurrence, together with the highly belated recording of the statements of witnesses of the F.I.R., would make out, at least, a prima facie case of bail in favour of the applicant.;