NAFE SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARAM Vir Singh is the author of the F.I.R. According to him his mother, the deceased Smt. Krishna, purchased a plot No. RZ 119, Gopal Nagar, Phase-II, Najafgarh, New Delhi and constructed two rooms thereon in the Year 1985. The said plot was purchased through, Nafe Singh Sb Man Singh. According to the complainant, Nafe Singh with the intention to grab the plot murdered his mother. He took away all the relevant documents of the plot in question in order to deprive the complainantTs mother from her rightful due. A Panchayat was held for settling the disputes who decided the matter in favour of the mother of the complainant and Nafe Singh was directed to pay the amount of compensation for his unauthorised occupation of the said plot. On that day when the Panchayat was held, the complainant the his father, Other and other relations had gone there. The complainant with the father and relations came back but the mother was left behind and when she did not reach home, complainant and his father went to search for the mother his father stayed back at Anaz Mandi, Najafgarh, whereas the complainant came to the plot No. RZ 119, Gopal Nagar, Peasecod, Najafgarh, New Delhi at about 6 p.m. on 22nd May, 1989. When he reached the spot he saw the accused, the present petitioner, along the his brother Mahavir Singh having tied both the hands of the complainantTs mother. Nafe Singh was carrying the kerosene oil and pouring the same on the body of the complainantTs mother. After pouring the kerosene oil, he took the match box from his pocket and one burning slick was struck to the body of the complainants mother with the result contaminants mother caught fire. This incident was seen by the complainant. He was threatened by Nafe Singh not to utter any word otherwise he would also be killed. The complainant informed this fact to his father. His father also came and found that Nafe Singh had taken -his mother to Private Nursing Home and from there to Safdarjung Hospital. The complainant tried to search out the mother but he could not find her in Safdarjung Hospital and came back to the plot in question and round her lying on bed: She was dead. It is in this background that the petitioner was arrested and charged under Section 302 read the Section 20 1/. I.P.C. Mr. Jitender Sethi. appearing for the petitioner contended that it is Nafe Singh who reported the matter to the police that the deceased Smt. Krishna committed suicide and it was Nafe Singh who tried to save her. It was he who took her to the hospital but she was declared dead and therefore brought her back. He further contended that the was no investigation regarding the dispute of the plot in question nor the prosecution has cited any member of the Panchayat to lay the foundation of the allegation. Moreover, if Karmvir Singh had seen the incident, he ought to have lodged the report immodesty. Neither Karmvir Singh nor his father lodged the report the police. It is only when police on Nafe SinghTs report started investigation that. Karmvir Singh made a statement before the police. The accused is a resident of Bahadurgarh whereas according to complainant, accused has been shown as resident of the disputed plot which on the face of it is wrong. The incident is of 1989 and till date only four formal witnesses have been examined. No other witness has been examined so far. On the other hand, Ms. Bhatia Public Prosecutor for the State contended that in the Primary Health Centre where the accused took the deceased which referred her to Safdarjung Hospital but the accused never took her there. This shows his mola fide intention and in view of the fact that the deceaseds son saw the incident no bail should be granted to the petitioner. The out touching the merits of the case and relying on the observation made by P.K. Bahri, 1. in Cr1. M (M) 2108/89. dated 20th December, 19891, where the trial had protracted for about three years and all witnesses has not been examined like in the present case the bail was granted. In this case also there arc as many as 15 to 20 witnesses out of which only four formal witnesses have been examined and rest are yet to be examined. Nobody knows how much time it is going to take, therefore taking all, these factors into consideration, I admit the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000.00 the one surety in the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Petition allowed.