Case: Krishan Kumar Alias Pamma Vs. State of Haryana

was defamed on account of him and he is standing with the said girl. On this, he started abusing me and I paid him in the same coin. Pamma came at my house in the evening with a bottle, and he sprinkled kerosene on my person from the said bottle, and then he set me on fire. My daughter was also sleeping with me. She woke up and ran awayQ. When did Pamma set you on fire ? A. Pamma had set me on fire at 9 p.m.-10 p.m. at night Q. Where Pamma had gone ? A. I cried on account of fire. Several other persons including my sister who are residing nearby came to rescue me. During this course Pamma had slipped away." The deceased met with her death on 4-3-1985 at 12.15 a.m. 6. In the course of investigation, some burnt clothes and some cotton smelling of kerosene were seized from the house of the deceased and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. On receipt of the report of such examination and after completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session. 7. In the absence of any eyewitness, the prosecution rested its case solely upon the two dying declarations quoted earlier. 8. The appellant, who pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him, gave the following version regarding the death of Rani while being examined under Section 313 CrPC. "As a matter of fact, Rani was compelling me to marry her immediately, but I said that my two sisters and brothers were unmarried and when they get married, I will marry her. She I did not agree for immediate marriage, Rani threatened that she would get her burnt and would get me implicated. I had visited Rani during the day and she asked me to come during the night. I came to the house of the deceased Rani at about 11.30 p.m. Again she insisted for inundate marriage but I did not agree, upon which Rani lifted a (sic lamp) containing batti having kerosene in it. The burning batti was put off and threw kerosene on her body and put herself on fire. I lifted a quilt and with the help of the quilt, I took Rani in my grip in order to extinguish the fire and I received burn injuries. The sister of the deceased also cried. Later on, this false case was got registered against me at the instance of her relations." * In support of his defence, he examined Janki Devi, the sister of the deceased. 9. Mr Kohli, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, did not dispute the fact that the deceased made the above two dying declarations as alleged by the prosecution. He, however, contended that the declaration made by the deceased was false and the appellants version was true. In support of his contention, he first drew our attention to the evidence of Dr (Mrs) P. Sinha (PW 4) who examined the appellant at the instance of the police after his surrender on 5-3-1985 and found the following injuries on his person. "1. Hot burn over right hand over the knuckles, middle ring and little fingers. It was superficial, skin-deep. Skin was peeled off and the area was congested 2. Hot burn over lower third left forearm, about 4" in diameter, skin was red and congested. It was superficial and skin-deep 3. Hair over the forehead in small quantity were burnt." He next placed reliance on the testimony of Janki Devi (DW 2), sister of the deceased, who supported the appellants version. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that both the learned courts below went into the question as to whether the deceased met with homicidal death as alleged by the prosecution or a suicidal death as contended by the appellant and on detailed discussion of the evidence found the story made out by the appellant wholly unacceptable. The most important circumstance which persuades us to disbelieve the version of the appellant is the fact that immediately after the incident, he ran away from the spot. If his version was true, it was expected of him to take the deceased immediately to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. Indeed, he did not even get himself examined for his own burns. While on this point it will be pertinent to mention that Dr (Mrs) Sinha opined that the injuries found on the appellant were possible while putting somebody on fire by pouring kerosene as in such a situation, flames emerge abruptly. We do not however for a moment suggest that his such conduct by itself points to his guilt but it certainly belies his version of the incident. It is, of course, true that the sister of the deceased has supported the appellant but we cannot lose sight of the fact that she was a witness for the prosecution and was summoned to testify on its behalf. She was however not examined by the prosecution as she was found to have been won over; and then she examined herself as a defence witness. She admitted in her cross-examination that for the purposes of testifying on behalf of the defence, she was not summoned by the Court but was brought by Raj Kumar, the brother of the appellant. Then again we find that she admitted in her deposition that she had been attracted to the spot on hearing the cries of the deceased. Obviously, the cries were raised by the deceased after she was put on fire and, therefore, she could not have been in a position to say how she had been set on fire. 11. Having carefully gone through the evidence on record, we do not find any reason whatsoever to disturb the findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court that the dying declarations are true and can be made the sole basis of conviction

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that both the learned courts below went into the question as to whether the deceased met with homicidal death as alleged by the prosecution or a suicidal death as contended by the appellant and on detailed discussion of the evidence found the story made out by the appellant wholly unacceptable. The most important circumstance which persuades us to disbelieve the version of the appellant is the fact that immediately after the incident, he ran away from the spot. If his version was true, it was expected of him to take the deceased immediately to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. Indeed, he did not even get himself examined for his own burns. While on this point it will be pertinent to mention that Dr (Mrs) Sinha opined that the injuries found on the appellant were possible while putting somebody on fire by pouring kerosene as in such a situation, flames emerge abruptly. We do not however for a moment suggest that his such conduct by itself points to his guilt but it certainly belies his version of the incident. It is, of course, true that the sister of the deceased has supported the appellant but we cannot lose sight of the fact that she was a witness for the prosecution and was summoned to testify on its behalf. She was however not examined by the prosecution as she was found to have been won over; and then she examined herself as a defence witness. She admitted in hern that for the purposes of testifying on behalf of the defence, she was not summoned by the Court but was brought by Raj Kumar, the brother of the appellant. Then again we find that she admitted in her deposition that she had been attracted to the spot on hearing the cries of the deceased. Obviously, the cries were raised by the deceased after she was put on fire and, therefore, she could not have been in a position to say how she had been set on fire11. Having carefully gone through the evidence on record, we do not find any reason whatsoever to disturb the findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court that the dying declarations are true and can be made the sole basis of conviction