NARENDER KUMAR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 179, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Arguments
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 179 
NARENDER KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2010) 
D.ECEMBER 16, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULL:A AND 
UDAY UM ESH LAUT, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 rlw s.34- Prosecution case 
was that the victim-deceased was picked up by the appellants C 
police officials and illegally confined in police post and was 
beaten severely to extract confession from him that he was 
involved in stealing of some· properties and thereafter 
kerosene was poured on him and set on fire by appellants 
by thro_wing ignited matchstick - Dying declaration was D 
recorded by magistrate in the presence of doctor- Conviction 
by courts below on the basis of dying declaration -
Challenged on the ground that the identity of the deceased 
was not verified by the magistrate before recording dying 
declaration and thus dying declaration was not reliable - On 
E 
appeal, held: The dying declaration was recorded by the 
magistrate after doctor noted the condition of the patient and 
after ensuring that the patient was fully conscious and capable 
of making statement - There was no reason to disbelieve 
the version of the doctor and the magistrate - Further, dying 
F 
declaration is not liable to be rejected on mere omis_sion of 
getting thumb impression or signature of the deceased- No 
interference with the order of conviction. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It was contended that the identity of the 
deceased was not verified by the
Metropolitan Magistrate 
PW-7. The evidence of PW-7 the Magistrate was to the 
effect that PW-12, the doctor identified the patient to him 
179 
.G 
H
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15S.C.R. 
A though he had not obtained the identification of the 
patient in writing from PW-12. That apart, in the initial 
part of the evidence he has narrated as to how PW-2 the 
ASI approached him to record the dying declaration of 
the deceased, that he was accompanied by PW-2 to the 
B ·hospital, that he was taken to the patient thereafter, 
namely, the deceased and after satisfying himself that 
the patien1: was fully conscious and was capable of 
making the statement and making an endorsement and 
also after getting it endorsed by PW-12 he proceeded to 
c record the dying declaration of the deceased. Having 
regard to the said statement of PW-12, which was also 
corroborated in every respect by PW-7 who has made 
· an endorsement in the dying declaration itself that the 
patient was fully conscious and capable of making his 
o statement and the said witnesses are official witnesses 
one of whom, namely, PW-12 is an expert witness, there 
is no reason to disbelieve their version and, therefore, 
the submission on that footing is liable to be rejected. 
[Paras 9and13] [189-A-D; 190-D-E] 
E 
2. It was then contended that the dying declaration 
did not contain either the signature or thumb impression 
of the deceased which is in violation of the guidelines 
issued by the High Court of Delhi in regard to the 
recording of dying declaration. In the first place, it must 
F be stated that it was only a guideline. The guidelines 
were issued
by the High Court in order to ensure that 
any defect in regard to the identity of the deceased or 
the veracity of the contents of the dying declaration are 
not doubted on the ground that the concerned patient 
G himself could not have made such a statement in order 
to implicate someone in the offence. Merely because 
there was a defect in following the said guideline, which, 
is of a trivial nature and when the dying declaration 
H
NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
181 
recorded is otherwise proved by ample evidence, the A 
whole of the dying declaration cannot be thrown out. In 
the case on hand, the dying declaration was recorded 
by PW-7 who was summoned by PW-12 the doctor who 
noted the condition of the patient and PW-7 was brought 
to the hospital by PW-2, the ASI and before recording B 
the dying declaration PW-12 endorsed the capability of 
the deceased to make the statement apart from PW-7 
himself ensuring that the deceased was in a fit condition 
to make the statement and thereafter the said statement 
was recorded by PW-7 a responsible judicial Officer. It c 
cannot be held that simply because PW-7 omitted to get 
the thumb impression or signature of the deceased the 
dying declaration should be rejected. The dying 
declaration was proved in the manner known to law and, 
therefore, there was no scope to reject the same. o 
[Paras 14 and 15] [190-F·H; 19-A-F] 
3. PWs-17 and 18 stated that on 5.8.1980 appellan~­
A-3 was in the Excise office at about 10.30or11 a.m. and 
remained there till 2 p.m. According to the deceased, he 
was burnt at -the instance of the appellants just about E 
10.30 a.m. in the quarters of polic~ post. Therefore, prior 
to 10.30 a.m. the whereabouts of the accused·A-3 were 
not surely stated. He was assigned the task of taking 
the sample at 9.40 a.m. Therefore, between 9.40 a.m. and 
10.30 a.m. the location of the said accused was not F 
shown to have been in a
different place other than the 
place of occurrence. That apart, the trial Court noted 
that the excise laboratory at battery line was just 5-6 
minutes drive from the police post. The trial Court made 
a detailed analysis of this issue and found that there G 
was no truth in the claim of alibi of the appellant-A-3. 
[Para 17] [192-D-H] 
H
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
B 
Appeal No. 44 7 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2009 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 
1993. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2010. 
R. S. Sodhi, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Manisha Bhandari, Omkar 
Shrivastava, Divyadeep Chaturvedi, Ankit Kushwaha, 
c Mrs. Nipush Mola Joshi, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Sanjay Jain, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
S. K. Dubey, Sr. Adv., Subhash Kaushik, Yogesh Tiwari, 
Yash Pal Dhingra, P. K. Dey, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, R. S. Nagar, 
S.S. Rawat (for D.S. Mahra),Advs. forthe Respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. The 
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.44 7 of 2010 is A-1 and the 
appellants in Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010 are A-2 and 
E A-3. Both these appeals are directed against the common 
judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court 
in Criminal Appeal No.33of1993 dated 06.03.2009 preferred 
by the appellants in both these appeals. 
2. At the very outset it must be stated that the appellants 
F were Police Constables. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 
No.44 7 of 2010 was Head Constable and the other two 
appellants in Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010 were 
Constables. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.44 7 of 201 O 
was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 
G Section 34 along with the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.484 
of
2010 and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment apart 
from fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of the payment of 
fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The 
appellants in Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010 were also 
H convicted for-the offence under Section 330 read with Section
NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
183 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for A 
a period of two years along with fine of Rs.1000/- each and in 
default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for one month. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 
3. The case of the prosecution was that on 01.08.1980 
the deceased Laxman Singh alias Hanuman was picked up 
8 
from the railway station of Subzi Mandi by the Police and was 
illegally confined in Andha Mughal Police Post till 05.08.1980. 
While in such custody, in order to extract confession from him 
he was beaten severely and on 05.08.1980 he suffered burn 
injuries at quarters No.4 of police post Andha Mughal from 
C 
where he was taken to Hindurao Hospital and then to LNJP 
Hospital by PW-1 ASl.At LNJP Hospital PW-12 Doctor asked 
PW-2 to procure the services of Magistrate as the deceased 
wanted to make a declaration when he was in the last spell of 
his life time. After the above occurrence initially a case was D 
registered at Subzi Mandi Police Station vide FIR No. 763 of 
80 for the offence under Section 309 IPC. Thereafter, a dying 
declaration was recorded in the presence of PW-7 
Metropolitan Magistrate around 2.30 p.m. on 05.08.1980. After 
the recording of the dying declaration another FIR was E 
registered under Section 307 IPC. The deceased breathed 
his last on 06.08.1980 whereafter the case was converted to 
one under Section 302
IPC. The dying declaration of the 
deceased revealed that he was brought to Andha Mughal 
Police Post by the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.484 of F 
2010 along with one other person by name Tyagi on 
01.08.1980 from the railway station of Subzi Mandi and after 
bringing him to the police post he was beaten severely to 
extract a confession from him to the effect that he was involved 
in the stealing of some properties. According to the prosecution G 
as the deceased was pleading ignorance, ultimately on 
05.08.1980 around 10.30 a.m. kerosene was poured on him 
by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2010 while he 
was set on fire by the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.484 of 
2010 by throwing ignited matchstick. 
H
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015]15S.C.R. 
A 
4. In support of the case of the prosecution as many as 
26 witnesses were examined and none was examined on 
behalf of the appellants. In 313 questioning the appellants 
denied their involvement and the appellant Om Prakash A-3 
took the stand that he was not present at all at the place of 
B occurrence on 05.08.1980. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 
No.447 of 2010 took the defence that since because the 
brother of the deceased, one Sher Singh was arrested by him 
and was fined R$.30 for the offence under Section 112/117 of 
the Delhi Police Act, to wreck vengeance on him he was 
c implicated. PW-4/A was the duty register for the period 
01.08.1980 to 05.08.1980 of Andha Mughal Police Station 
which disclosed that all the three were on duty between 
01.08.1980 to 05.08.1980. PW-2 ASI who was in the police 
station at that relevant time confirmed that he heard the cries 
D of the deceased and when he rushed to quarter No.4 he found 
him in a burning condition. He also confirmed that the said 
quarter was in the name of A-2 Vijay Kumar the first appellant 
in Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010 who was residing there 
along with others. He also confirmed that a kerosene stove 
E was lying there in the quarters at the time when he saw the 
deceased in a burning condition. PW-1 O/A is the seizure memo 
for the seizure of burnt clothes, stove and a match box from 
quarters No.4 which was confirmed by the independent witness 
PW-16 who
also witnessed the deceased in a burning 
F condition. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded 
by PW-7 a Metropolitan Magistrate who after receiving the 
certificate of fitness certified from PW-12 Doctor that the 
deceased was fit to make a statement recorded his dying 
declaration. The Trial Court having analysed the evidence 
G rejected the plea of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.44 7 
of 2010 that he was implicated falsely to wreck vengeance on 
him and also rejected the plea of alibi taken by the second 
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010. The Trial Court 
found the dying declaration recorded by PW-7 in exhibit PW-
H 7/C as truthful and unassailable and by relying upon the other
NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
185 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
corroborative material evidence convicted the appellants as A 
directed above. The High Court again analysed the entire 
evidence threadbare and found that there was no infirmity in 
the analysis of the evidence made by the Trial Court in particular 
the truthfulness and the reliability of the dying declaration 
recorded by PW-7 and declined to interfere with the conviction 
B 
and sentences imposed on the appellants. We heard Mr. Dubey 
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 
No.447 of 2010, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned counsel forthe first 
appellant-Vijay Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010 and 
Mr. Sodhi, learned Senior Counsel for the second appellant~ C 
Om Prakash in Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010. 
5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the 
appellants were that the dying declaration was wholly unreliable 
for the reason that admittedly after the deceased was admitted 
to the hospital on 05.08.1980 around 11.20 a.m. as he was 
D 
writhing in pain, pathedine injection was applied and, therefore, 
he would not have been in coherence state of mind to make 
the dying declaration at 2.30 p.m. It was then contended that 
PW-7 did not make proper identification of the deceased, that 
the Magistrate did not obtain any certificate about the fitness 
E 
of the deceased, that the thumb impression of the deceased 
was not secured in the dying declaration as per the
guideline 
of the Delhi High Court Rules, that the dying declaration was 
not read out to the deceased and that the doctor did not certify 
the dying declaration which was also in violation of the Delhi 
F 
High Court Rules. On behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal 
No.44 7 of 2010 it was contended that because a case was 
filed by the said appellant against the brother of the deceased, 
the family of the deceased had a grudge against him and, 
therefore, he was falsely implicated, that, therefore, the G 
evidence of PW-5 who was the brother of the deceased could 
not have been relied upon by the Courts below, that the dying 
• declaration was not recorded in the question and answer form 
and that the Magistrate did not ascertain as to whether the 
deceased was m to make a statement at that point of time 
H
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15S.C.R. 
A 
and that since the deceased was visited by his close relatives 
in the hospital he was tutored to make a statement against the 
appellants. On behalf of the second appellant Om Prakash, it 
was contended that between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m he was in the 
Central Excise Laboratories in connection with a chemical test 
B to be carried out which work was assigned to him and, 
therefore, he was not present at all at the place of occurrence, 
that the S.I. of Police Mr. Ram Kishan who was also present at 
the place of occurrence was not examined and that the · 
deceased did not tell the name of Om Prakash to PW-14 and 
c that the Tyagi whose name was referred to by the deceased 
was not named in the FIR. On behalf of the first appellant in 
Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2010 it was also contended that 
there was no evidence for any motive to kill the deceased, that 
the family member of the deceased were all involved in some 
o crime or other and since the appellants were all constables 
they were falsely implicated in the case. 
6. As against the above the above submissions, learned 
counsel for respondent State Mr. D.K. Dey submitted that the 
dying declaration exhibit P-7/C was rightly relied upon by the 
E trial Court as well as the High Court, that there was no deficiency 
or defect in the recording of the dying declaration by PW-7 the 
Metropolitan Magistrate, that the said document was truthful 
recording of the statement of the
deceased and, therefore, 
certain minor defects relating to non-compliance of the 
F guidelines issued by the High Court would not vitiate the said 
document. Learned counsel also submitted that the presence 
of the appellant in the Police Station on the relevant days and 
on the crucial date, namely, 5.8.1980 was not in dispute, that 
the evidence of the police officer PW-4 and PW-2 confirmed 
G the said fact, that the plea of alibi by Om Prakash one of the 
accused was not fully established and when once the plea of 
alibi failed then there was no defence for the said accused. 
The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court and the High · 
Court having examined all the above facts in detail, before 
H
NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
187 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
finding the appellants guilty of the offence the conviction and 
A 
sentence imposed upon them does not call for interference. 
7. Having heard the respective learned counsel and 
having examined the material evidence placed before us and 
having perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as that 
of the High Court, we are also convinced that the conviction 
8 
and sentence imposed upon the appellants do not call for 
interference. 
8. Having perused the materials on records, we find the 
following facts are not in dispute, namely: 
c 
a. The deceased Laxman Singh@ Hanuman s/o Huba 
Singh was picked up by two of the appellants along 
with one Tyagi on 1.8.1980 and confined in Andha 
Mugal police post till 5.8.1980. 
b. On 5.8.1980, at about 10.30 a.m. on hearing the hue D 
and cry of the deceased who was kept in quarter No.4 
which was in occupation of Vijay Kumar along with 
some other police constable, PW-2 ASI rushed to the 
spot along with PW-16 who is an independent witness, 
both of whom witnessed the deceased in a burning 
E 
condition. 
c. The deceased was shifted to Hindu Rao Hospital from 
where he was again shifted to LNJP hospital by 
PW-2. 
d. The deceased was attended by PW-12 Doctor who 
on seeing the condition of the deceased asked PW-2 
ASI to summon a Magistrate for recording fne dying 
declaration. 
F 
e. FIR 763/1980 was registered at Subzi Mandi police 
G 
station
for an offence under Section 309 IPC. 
f. 
At the instance of PW-2, PW-7 the Metropolitan 
Magistrate arrived at the Hospital on 5.8.1980 to 
H
188 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 
record the dying declaration of the deceased. The 
dying declaration was recorded by PW-7 at 2.30 p.m. 
g. Afterthe recording of the dying declaration the offence 
was altered as one under Section 307 IPC. 
h. On 6.8.1980, the victim died. Thereafter, the offence 
was altered as one under Section 302 IPC. 
i. 
After the alteration of the charge of the offence under 
section 302 IPC the investigation was handed over to 
crime branch by the local police. 
j. 
As per exhibit PW-4/A, duty register for the period 
1.8.1980 to 5.8.1980, the appellants were all on duty. 
This was also spoken to by PW-4 Sub Inspector of 
Police. 
k. As per exhibit PW-1 O/A seizure memo, burnt cloth, 
stove and match box were recovered from quarter 
No.4 which was also spoken to by PW-16. 
I. 
In 313 statement the appellants admitted their posting 
atAndha Mugal police post. 
m. As per the dying declaration after the deceased was 
taken into custody on 1.8.1980, he was severely 
beaten time and again by the accused, that on 5.8.80 
at 10.30 a.m. while he was taking his food in the police 
post, Narender Kumar, Head Constable gave him 
beatings, that while beating him he opened a stove 
lying nearby and poured the kerosene oil over the 
• deceased while the other two accused Om Prakash 
and Vijay Singh, constables who were also present 
there lit a matchstick and threw the same on his body. 
n. The deceased died on 6.8.19-80. 
9.
Having noted the above uncontroverted facts, when 
we examine the defence canvassed on behalf of the 
appellants, according to them PW-7/C the dying declaration
NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
189 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
cannot be relied upon for various defects. It was contended 
A 
that the identity of the deceased was not verified by the learned 
Metropolitan Magistrate PW-7. Insofar as the said stand is 
concerned, when we peruse the evidence of PW-7 the learned 
Magistrate, we find that he has stated that PW-12 Dr. Nayar 
identified the patient to him though he had not obtained the 
B 
identification of the patient in writing from PW-12. That apart, 
in the initial part of the evidence he has narrated as to how 
PW-2 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police approached him 
to record the dying declaration of the deceased, that he was 
accompanied by PW-2 to the hospital, that he was taken to c 
the patient thereafter, namely, the deceased Laxman Singh 
s/o of Huba Singh and after preliminary orientation and after 
satisfying himself that the patient was fully conscious an9 was 
~apable of making the statement and making an endorsement 
vide PW-7/D and also after getting it endorsed it by PW-12 he D 
proceeded to record exhibit PW-7/C, the dying declaration of 
the deceased. 
10. Having noted the above detailed statement made by 
PW-7 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, we have no doubt in 
our mind about the verification of the identity of the patient/ 
E 
deceased and, therefore, we do not find any substance in the 
said submission. 
11. It was then contended that the patient was 
administered pathedine
injection for the pain and suffering that 
F 
he was undergoing by around 11.30 a.m. and that the effect of 
pathedine would remain at least for four hours and, therefore, 
the deceasetl could not have been in a position to give 
evidence coherently. As far as the said submission was 
concerned, we must go by the expert opinion, namely, the doctor G 
who was present and who permitted PW-7 to record the dying 
declaration. The doctor was examined as PW-12. The Doctor 
in his evidence stated that when he examined the patient at 
12.15 p.m. he found the deceased in a fit condition to make 
statement and thereafter he called upon PW-2 to summon the H
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
Magistrate. Subsequently, he made another entry under exhibit 
PW-12/A at 2.30 p.m. finding the patient again in a fit condition 
to make a statement and he also put his signatures under 
exhibit PW-1/C. 
12. The doctor PW-12 also explained that normally the 
8 
effect of pathedine injection would last for 3-4 hours depending 
upon the severity of the pain. He further stated that the 
deceased had suffered 80% burn injuries as per the entries in 
the MLC, that he was given medicines at 12.50 p.m. and if the 
pain was severe the effect of pathedine injection may not last 
C for more than two hours. He reiterated that according to him 
when the dying declaration was recorded by PW-7 the 
deceased was in a fit condition to make a statement. 
13. Having regard to the said statement of PW-12, which. 
0 
was also corroborated in every respect by PW-7 who has made 
an endorsement in the dying declaration itself that the patient 
was fully conscious and capable of making his statement and 
the said witnesses are official witnesses one of whom, namely, 
PW-12 is an expert witness, we have no reason to disbelieve 
E their version and, therefore, the submission on that footing is 
also liable to be rejected. 
14. It was then contended that the dying declaration did 
not contain either the signature or thumb impression of the 
deceased which is in violation of the guidelines issued by the 
F 
High Court of Delhi in regard to the recording
of dying 
declaration. 
15. When we consider the said submission, in the first 
place, it must be stated that it was only a guideline. The 
guidelines were issued by the High Court in order to ensure 
G that any defect in regard to the identity of the deceased or the 
veracity of th& contents of the dying declaration are not doubted 
on the grounC: that the concerned patient himself could not have 
made such a statement in order to implicate someone in the 
offence. The issuance of the guidelines is for the purpose of 
H
NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
191 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
ensuring and for testing the genuineness of the dying A 
declaration of person who is in the last moment of his life. 
Merely because there was a defect in following the said 
guideline, which, as is now pointed out, is of a trivial nature 
and if the dying declaration recorded is otherwise proved by 
ample evidence, both oral as well as documentary, on the 
B 
ground of such trivial defects, the whole of the dying declaration 
cannot be thrown out. In the case on hand, we have noted that 
the dying declaration was recorded by PW-7 who was 
summoned by PW-12 the doctor who noted the condition of 
the patient and PW-7 was brought to the hospital by PW-2, 
C 
the ASI and before recording the dying declaration PW-12 
endorsed the capability of the deceased to make the statement 
apart from PW-7 himself ensuring that the deceased was in a 
fit condition to make the statement and thereafter the said 
statement was recorded by PW-7 a responsible judicial Officer. 
D 
It cannot be held that simply because PW-7 omitted to get the 
thumb impression or signature of the deceased the dying 
declaration should be rejected. As has been noted by the High 
Court in its judgment where it has reached a conclusion that 
the recording of the dying declaration was established and 
E 
found to be truthful and the statement contained therein was 
made voluntarily and recorded correctly, there is no reason to
doubt the said document PW-7/C for the reason that the 
signature or thumb impression was not obtained on the said 
document. Therefore, we hold that the dying declaration was 
F 
proved in the manner known to law and, therefore, there is no 
scope to reject the same. 
16. On behalf of the second appellant in Criminal Appeal 
No.484 of 2010, a plea was raised to the effect that between 
11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 5.8.1980 he was in the Central Excise G 
Laboratory as he was directed to deposit a substance for test 
in the said laboratory where he had to stay back between 11 
a.m. to 2 p.m. The plea of alibi was raised on the above basis 
and in fact the prosecution themselves examined PW-20 one 
A.S. Negi, LDC of Excise Department who in his deposition 
H
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15S.C.R. 
A stated that on 5.8.1980 he was working as LDC in Excise 
laboratory, he knew Om Prakash the accused, that the accused 
met him at 11 a.m. to deposit a sample, that thereafter he asked 
him to come after 2 p.m. as they used to receive sam pies only 
between 2 and 4 p.m. and that one Har Lal, UDC was also 
B sitting in the same room in which PW-20 was sitting and that 
accused Om Prakash brought the sample only after 2 p.m. 
which was deposited by Har Lal, UDC. It is quite apparent 
that the appellant Om Prakash himself being a police constable 
the prosecuting agency wanted to support the appellant and, 
c therefore, came forward to examine PW-20 whose version has 
otherwise nothing to do with the case of the prosecution, on 
the other hand it was detrimental to the case of prosecution. 
PWs-17 to 19 were also examined to support the above 
version. 
D 
17. PWs-17 and 18 also stated that on 5.8.1980 appellant 
Om Prakash was in the Excise office at 2, Battery Lane, Rajpur 
Road, Delhi at about 10.30or11 a.m. and remained there till 
2 p.m. As was noted by us earlier, the evidence of PWs-17, 
18, 19 and 20 were all wholly unnecessary to speak about the 
E case of the prosecution. We can understand if they had been 
examined on the side of Om Prakash. In any event, even going 
by the version of those witnesses he was found in the office of 
excise laboratory after 10.30 a.m. until 2 p.m. According to 
the deceased, he was burnt at
the instance of the appellants 
F just about 10.30 a.m. in the quarterNo.4 of police post of Andha 
Mughal. Therefore, prior to 10.30 a.m. the whereabouts of the 
accused Om Prakash were not surely stated. He was assigned 
the task of taking the sample at 9.40 a.m. Therefore, between 
9.40 a.m. and 10.30a.m. the location of the said accused was 
G not shown to have been in a different place other than the place 
of occurrence. That apart, the trial Court has noted that the 
excise laboratory at battery line was just 5-6 minutes drive from 
the police post. The trial Court made a detailed analysis of 
this issue and has found that there was no truth in the claim of 
H alibi of the second appellant Om Prakash.
NARENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
193 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.] 
18. Having regard to the above factors noted by the trial A 
Court as well as by the High Court, we are also of the view that 
there is no substance in the said plea made· on behalf of the 
said appellant. 
19. On behalf of Narender Kumar, the appellant in 
Criminal Appeal No. 447/2010, it was faintly suggested that B 
he had earlier booked the brother of deceased one Sher Singh 
for an offence under Delhi Police Act for which the said Sher 
Singh came to be fined the sum of Rs.30 and, therefore, to 
wreck vengeance on him he was falsely implicated. As was 
rightly rejected by the trial Court as well as the High Court the C 
said defence appears to be a very remote one as compared 
to a very solid evidence in the form of dying declaration 
contained in exhibit PW-7/C in which the deceased 
categorically referred to the specific role played by the said 
appellant Narender Kumar that he poured the kerosene from 
D 
a stove which was lying in the quarters No.4 which was also 
recovered later on under exhibit PW-1 O/A. Therefore, it is too 
late in the day for the appellant to raise such a flimsy ground 
by way of defence. We do not find any scope to accede to 
such a plea raised on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal 
E 
No.447/2010. 
20. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not 
find any merit in both the appeals. The appeals fail and the 
same are dismissed. 
Devika Gujral
Appeals dismissed. 
F