Supreme Court of India Ramesh And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 22 November, 2016 Equivalent citations: AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 5554, AIR 2016 SC 5554, (2017) 169 ALLINDCAS 244 (SC), AIR 2017 SC( CRI) 39, 2017 (1) ADR 348, (2017) 1 DMC 1, (2017) 1 UC 100, (2016) 4 RECCRIR 955, (2017) 1 ALLCRILR 513, (2017) 1 MH LJ (CRI) 673, 2017 CALCRILR 1 513, (2017) 98 ALLCRIC 295, (2017) 1 ALLCRIR 227, 2017 (1) SCC (CRI) 460, 2017 (1) SCC 529, (2016) 4 CURCRIR 276, (2016) 4 CRILR(RAJ) 1217, (2016) 4 DLT(CRL) 710, (2016) 12 SCALE 246, 2016 CRILR(SC&MP) 1217, 2016 ALLMR(CRI) 5348, (2016) 4 CRIMES 169, 2016 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 1217, (2017) 66 OCR 58, (2017) 1 ALD(CRL) 387 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2014 |RAMESH AND OTHERS |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF HARYANA |.....RESPONDENT(S) | J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The appellants herein were tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302, 34, 498A of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') for which FIR bearing No. 254 dated 28th September, 1999 was registered against them in Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana. However, the High Court, in appeal, has overturned the verdict of acquittal, thereby convicting all the four accused persons (appellants herein). The judgment of the High Court is dated 30th May, 2014, whereby the appellants are sentenced as under: “Section 302/34 IPC: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Section 498A/34 IPC: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.” 2. We may state at the outset that the conviction is primarily based upon the statement of Smt. Roshni, wife of Appellant no. 1, just before her death. This statement has been taken by the courts below as her 'dying declaration' and acted upon with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is this dying declaration which is the bone of contention. According to the appellants herein there was no reason to rely upon the same not only because of certain infirmities therein but also for the reason of absence of any corroboration. Therefore, before proceeding further, we would like to reproduce the statement of Roshni (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). It reads as under: “.....Stated that it was the time of 3 A.M. today. I was sleeping in my house at that time. Then my husband Ramesh came and Suresh his brother, i.e., my devar was also with him. Before this, Ramesh my husband and Suresh gave beatings to me. Thereafter, my devar Suresh lighted stick of matchbox. Wife of Suresh and my mother in law namely Saroj and Prem caught hold. Those both brothers ablazed me. Thereafter, the person who had caught hold me and who had set me on fire fled away from the spot. Thereafter, outsider persons came there and put off my fire. I had become upset. Then I was shifted to Medical College by my devar Suresh and my mother in law. My marriage was solemnized 20 years before. I have two sons Manjit and Ravinder aged about 16 and 15 years. One year ago after giving beatings to me I was thrown in a well by Ramesh and Suresh. I was taken out from the well by the villagers. On some occasion they say to bring buffalo and on some occasion they demand money and scooter. All the persons i.e. my mother in law, devrani, devar and husband used to beat me. Nothing else i intend to depose, i am illiterate. I have heard my aforesaid statement, which is correct and accurate. Admitting it to be correct i put my signature on it.” As pointed about above, FIR was registered against the appellants on the basis of the aforesaid statement which reflects the case of prosecution as well. Still, in order to have the complete narration of the prosecution story, we would like to recapitulate the same hereunder. Marriage between Ramesh (Appellant No. 1) and the deceased was solemnized 20 years before the aforesaid incident. They had two sons out of their wedlock, namely, Manjit and Ravinder, 16 and 15 years old respectively. The deceased was being harassed by her husband and inlaws on continuous demand of