Krishan vs State Of Haryana

2. In brief, the facts are that Ex. PH/1, FIR No. 134 was registered against accused Shardi and Krishan under Sections 307, 498A, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) on 30th March, 1998. This FIR was registered in furtherance of the rukka, Ex.PH, received by the Police Station Sadar Narwana, from Civil Hospital, Jind. After receiving the rukka ASI Umed Singh, PW9 along with police officers reached the Civil Hospital, Narwana. That police officer obtained the evidence certificate in respect of Smt. Rani, wife of Krishan. She was admitted to the hospital with burn injuries. The doctor declared Rani fit to make the statement and also provided her medico-legal report to the Investigating Officer. Since Rani’s condition was serious, the Investigating Officer summoned Sh. Baljit Singh, then SDJM Narwana for the purpose of recording the statement of Rani.

3. On the request of the police, the said SDJM came to the hospital and proceeded to record the statement of Rani. The statement of the deceased was recorded on 30th March, 1998 at about 11.40 a.m. As per the dying declaration, Ext. PR/2 she was married to Krishan approximately 18-19 years ago. Krishan was addicted to liquor and used to harass her. When she served food to Krishan, he would throw away the thali on the ground.

4. From this wedlock, two sons were born aged 9 years and 7 years respectively. According to Rani, accused Krishan used to give her beatings whenever he was under the influence of liquor. Krishan also used to make demands for a car, and used to ask Rani to bring money to purchase the car from her father. She also stated that her father-in-law used to help her, but mother-in-law never helped. Shardi, mother of the accused used to instigate him.

5. On the fateful day, Rani herself took kerosene oil from the store at about 7 a.m. in the morning to burn the stove. At that time, her husband poured the kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. On the night previous to the occurrence, Krishan had come with his friend Bedu, son of Teka and asked her to prepare tea which she prepared and served to both of them. According to Rani, when she was set on fire by the accused, her father-in-law and sister-in-law extinguished the fire and seeing them even her husband helped in putting off the fire. The father-in-law and sister-in-law had come to the place of occurrence after hearing her screams, but none of them were present when the accused Krishan had sprinkled kerosene on her body.

7. Based upon the dying declaration made by the deceased, FIR was registered under Sections 498A, 307, 109 and 34 IPC. However, subsequently on 2nd April, 1998 Rani died and the offence was converted to Section 302 IPC and FIR accordingly amended. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, recorded statement of PWs and prepared the Inquest Report, Ext.PN, with regard to the dead body of Rani. The doctor, PW14, who performed the post-mortem upon the body of the deceased and noticed the condition of the body and injuries upon the body of the deceased stated in his statement as follows:-

The probable time that elapse between the injury and death was between 3-4 day (as per record and between death) and post mortem was within 4-36 hours. Ext. PT is the carbon copy of the PMR which bears my signature. On police request Ex. PO I conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Rani wife of Krishan which is also accompanied by the inquest report Ex. PN which are in total 11 pages and I initial the same.

8. The accused were directed to face trial before the Court of Sessions. The learned Trial Court vide its detailed judgment dated 15th November, 1999 confirmed the opinion that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and, thus, while giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted both the accused. The Trial Court found that in the facts of the present case, it was not safe to rely upon the dying declaration of the deceased and acquitted both the accused. It will be useful to refer to the relevant findings of the trial court.

d. Ramkrushna v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 13 SCC

525.”

26. In view of the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the hostility of PW1, PW3 and PW4 cannot demolish the value and reliability of the dying declaration of the deceased, Ext. PR/2. The dying declaration has been proved in accordance with law, is a truthful version of the events that occurred and the circumstances leading to her death. The same is reliable and in fact, to some extent, finds corroboration from the statements of other witnesses.

27. For these reasons, we see no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.