Amit Kumar & Anr vs State Of Punjab

3. With the aforesaid tragic prelude, we can now proceed to decipher the events which culminated in the burning of Anita Rani on the morning of 26.6.1997.

4. According to Kimti Lal, PW1 and Gulshan Kumar, PW5, it was Asha Rani PW2, neighbour of the deceased, who told them that Anita Rani had been set ablaze with kerosene oil. Thereafter, they went to the house of the accused where they saw Anita Rani lying in the courtyard, having been severely burnt. However, the fire had been extinguished by the time they reached. On enquiry made by Kimti Lal, PW1, Anita Rani stated 3 "Kailash Rani, Amit Kumar, Brij Bhushan and Neelam Rani had put kerosene oil on her and set her on fire and she should be saved." At that time, all the accused were present in the courtyard. Kimti Lal and Gulshan Kumar took Anita Rani to Dayanand Medical College/Hospital, Ludhiana and got her admitted there. ASI Rajpal Singh (PW 17) received information about the incident at about 12.15 p.m. He promptly reached the hospital (DMC), and made preliminary enquiries. Thereafter, he went to the Duty Magistrate and moved a request application (Ex.P26) at 4.30 p.m. for recording the statement of Anita Rani. (Endorsement Ex.P27 was made by Judicial Magistrate i.e. on the application). Within a short period, ASI Rajpal Singh alongwith Harjinder Pal Singh, PW13, the then Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, reached the hospital. Opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of the patient was given at 5.05 p.m. (Ex.P28). After she was declared fit (endorsement Ex.P11), her statement (Ex.P29) was recorded at 5.25 p.m. Thereafter, 4 ASI Rajpal Singh, PW17 recorded another statement of Anita Rani (Ex.P8) from 5.40 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. This statement was also recorded after obtaining the opinion of the doctor (Ex.P13). On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a ruqa was sent for the registration of the case at the Police Station, Moga resulting in the recording of a formal FIR (Ex.P7). Initially, the FIR was recorded under Section 307/498-A/34 IPC against all the four accused, namely, Amit Kumar, Brij Bhushan, Kailash Rani and Neelam Rani. However, Anita Rani died on 1st July, 1997. Therefore, the case was registered under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against all the four accused. However, Kailash Rani passed away before committal proceedings. Consequently, the proceedings against her was abated.

5. The aforesaid three accused were duly put on trial for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. At the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Apart 5 from giving their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused also examined 9 witnesses in defence. Upon meticulous examination of the entire evidence, the trial court convicted Amit Kumar and Brij Bhushan under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Anita Rani. However, Neelam Rani was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

12. ASI HC Hardial Singh, PW15 delivered the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 26.6.1997 at 10.00 p.m. HC Gurmail Singh, PW16 produced the Roznamcha for the period from 20.6.1997 to 11.7.1997 of Police Station, Moga City - I. ASI Rajpal Singh is the investigating officer. We may notice at this stage that the statement (Ex.P29) recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in the vernacular language was treated as a dying declaration 15 upon the death of Anita Rani. The translated version of the dying declaration is:-

(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of M.P. (1981) Supp SCC 25)

27 Applying the aforesaid ratio of law we find that there is no occasion to disbelieve the dying declaration in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Without reference to any case law, the Courts below have correctly applied the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case.

19. In view of the aforesaid, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the verdict recorded by the 31 trial court as well as the High Court in convicting the appellants of murder.

20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.