Crl. Appeal No. 130-DB of 2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 130-DB of 2000. Date of Decision : 03.08.2009. Rani ...... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Gurveen Singh, Addl. AG Punjab. NAWAB SINGH J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated January 14th, 2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby, accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Mohinder Kaur (deceased) was married with Tarlok Singh. On July 4th, 1994, information was received by Santokh Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Matewal, District Amritsar that Mohinder Kaur was burnt by their in-laws and she was admitted in Civil Hospital, Amritsar. Santokh Singh, ASI reached Civil Hospital, Amritsar and moved application (Exhibit PC/1) to the Medical Officer for seeking his opinion whether Mohinder Kaur was fit to make the statement or not ? The Medical Officer vide his opinion (Exhibit PC/1) opined that Mohinder Kaur was fit to make the statement whereupon, Santokh Singh recorded her statement (In legal parlance known as dying declaration) Exhibit PD. The gist of the statement is:-(i) that she was married with Tarlok Singh one and Crl. Appeal No. 130-DB of 2000. 2 a half year prior to the occurrence; (ii) that her mother in law Banti, sister in law (Jethani) Rani and her husband used to treat her with cruelty for demand of dowry; (iii) that on July 4th, 1994 at 12 noon when she was working in the court-yard, her husband Tarlok Singh exhorted his mother Banti to pour kerosene on her and set her ablaze; (iv) that whereupon, Banti sprinkled kerosene upon her and her sister-in-law Rani (accused-appellant) set her ablaze; and (v) that her brother Mohinder Singh who was present in her house put a sack cloth upon her and admitted her in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital (Government Hospital), Amritsar. After recording her statement, Santokh Singh ASI appended his endorsement Exhibit PD/1 thereon and sent the same to Police Station Kathunangal. First Information Report (Exhibit PD/2) was registered against Tarlok Singh, Banti and Rani under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. Burnt clothes of Mohinder Kaur, Match box and a glass bottle containing kerosene were taken into possession. Rough site plan (Exhibit PF) was prepared. 3. On July 6th, 1994, Santokh Singh ASI moved application (Exhibit PG) to the Judicial Magistrate First Class (for short 'the Judicial Magistrate'), Amritsar for recording the statement of Mohinder Kaur whereupon, Sh. K.C. Garg, Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar (PW-8) recorded the statement of Mohinder Kaur Exhibit PW-8/A in which she stated:- (i) that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband used to quarrel with her; (ii) that her Jethani (sister-in- law) Rani poured kerosene upon her and her mother-in-law set her on fire; (iii) that her husband tried to save her; and (iv) that Mohinder Singh her brother brought her to hospital. On July 28th, 1994, Mohinder Kaur succumbed to her injuries. Inquest report (Exhibit PH) was prepared. Post-mortem examination (Exhibit PA) was conducted by Dr. R.K. Gorea, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Amritsar. On completion of investigation, the accused were arraigned for trial. 4. Tarlok Singh, Banti and Rani were charged for offence under Section 304-B IPC. They pleaded not guilty and Crl. Appeal No. 130-DB of 2000. 3 claimed trial. 5. Trial ensued. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Dr. R.K. Gorea (PW-1), Mohinder Singh (PW- 2), Banarsi Dass (PW-3), Santokh Singh ASI (PW-4), Lakhbir Singh, Head Constable (PW-5), Dr. Bholla Singh Sidhu (PW-6), Parshotam Singh (PW-7) and Sh. K.C. Garg, JMIC (PW-8). 6. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. They denied their complicity and pleaded innocence. 7. It is apposite to mention that during the trial, Banti- accused died and the proceedings abated and stood dropped against her. While convicting Rani-accused-appellant, trial Court acquitted Tarlok Singh by giving him the benefit of doubt. 8. The evidence on record, material circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State have been appraised. 9. The foremost and clinching piece of evidence against the accused is the dying declaration made by the deceased. It is believed that a person who is facing imminent death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment, he or she is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. A dying declaration thus, does enjoy a sacrosanct status as a piece of evidence being in the shape of last words coming from the mouth of the deceased. It is the principle of criminal jurisprudence that once the statement of a dying person passes the test of scrutiny of Courts, it turns to be a very important piece of evidence and if it is free from all embellishments, the dying declaration by itself can be considered to be sufficient for recording the conviction. In that eventuality, the Court has not to look for any corroboration. This statement of law is summed up in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1993(2) SC 59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court added that such a statement called 'the dying declaration' is relevant and admissible in evidence, provided it has been made by the Crl. Appeal No. 130-DB of 2000. 4 deceased while in a fit mental condition. 10. Let it now be seen, if there is any blemish in the dying declaration or any doubtful circumstance surrounding it ? 11. There are two dying declarations in this case. The first was made by the deceased on July 5th, 1994 which was recorded by Santokh Singh, ASI-Investigator (Exhibit PD). The second dying declaration (Exhibit PW-8/A) is in the shape of statement of the deceased recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Sh. K.C. Garg, Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on July 6th, 1994. 12. Much capital has been sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the appellant from an insignificant variation. In the first dying declaration, the version was that Banti accused poured kerosene on her and Rani set her ablaze. In the second dying declaration, the roles were reversed. It was stated that Rani poured kerosene and Banti set her aflame. So far as the complicity of both the accused is concerned, both the dying declarations are without the slightest of variance. The first dying declaration was very recent to suffering of burn injuries by the deceased to the extent of 60%. At that time, she was declared to be fit to make statement by the Medical Officer but even a layman would know that she must have been in agonizing pain. The second dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. There could be some amount of doubt regarding the exact words uttered by the deceased when Santokh Singh, ASI recorded her statement but there cannot be any doubt regarding the actual words used by the deceased before the Judicial Magistrate. The dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate must take the precedence and it will be sufficient by itself to prove that Rani put kerosene on her and Banti set her afire. Her death was the result of burn injuries as opined by Dr. R.K. Gorea (PW-1), who conducted the autopsy and proved the Post-mortem examination report (Exhibit PA). To argue that there was any other interfering act or circumstance would be fallacious. 13. In this particular case, further evidence is also available. Mohinder Singh-brother of the deceased (PW-2) has Crl. Appeal No. 130-DB of 2000. 5 deposed that on the fateful day, that is, July 4th, 1994, he had gone to the matrimonial house of his sister and witnessed that the accused were quarreling with her on account of demand for dowry. Prior thereto also, her sister was subjected to cruelty by the accused in relation to demand for dowry . When he was coming out of the house, he heard the accused saying that his sister be killed by pouring kerosene on her. He further witnessed that Banti put kerosene on her and Rani set her afire. 14. The testimony of Mohinder Singh does not admit of any doubt. He had gone to the matrimonial house of his sister as she was being treated with cruelty by the accused in relation to demand for dowry. It was argued by the learned counsel for the accused- appellant that presence of Mohinder Singh at the time and place of occurrence was doubtful and that the accused would not chose the time to execute their heinous act when brother of the deceased was present nearby. Suffice it to say that truth sometimes is stranger than fiction. What make the presence of Mohinder Singh (PW-2) strongly probable is the circumstance that the occurrence took place at 12 noon. The deceased was taken to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital (Government Hospital), Amritsar. She was medically examined there without any delay. It was none else than Mohinder Singh (PW-2)-the brother who took the deceased to the hospital. This fact finds mentioned in bed head ticket (Exhibit PJ/1). 15. As would be obvious from the aforesaid discussion, the dying declaration has been proved in this case to be without blemish and, therefore, it would have been sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused without any further corroboration. The eye witness account given by Mohinder Singh is again without any flaw and then of such a nature that it could sustain conviction on its own. Taking both these pieces of evidence together, the inevitable conclusion is that the case has been proved by the prosecution to the hilt. 16. Learned trial Judge has correctly appreciated the evidence and delivered an elaborate and well reasoned judgment Crl. Appeal No. 130-DB of 2000. 6 discussing all the aspects of the matter and arrived at a just and legal conclusion in convicting the accused-appellant. 17. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. 18. Rani accused-appellant was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. Her bail/surety bonds are cancelled. She be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE JUDGE 03.08.2009 SN Note:- Whether refer to reporter :