2007(4) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[From Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)]
G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur, JJ
Dayal Singh—Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra—Respondent
Appeal(crl.). 244 of 2006
Decided on : 03-05-2007
Evidence Act – Section 32 – Dying declaration recorded by a head constable – Whether Admissible? Held (Yes) – It is not essential that court below not warranted interference u\a 136. Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
G. P. MATHUR, J. —
This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 of Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), by which the appeal filed by the appellant Dayal Singh was dismissed and his conviction under Section 498-A and 302 IPC and sentence of six months R.I. and imprisonment for life respectively, as recorded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, by the judgment and order dated 23.3.1990, were affirmed.
2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Tejinder Kaur, daughter of the complainant PW.1 Chamanbai, was married to the appellant five or six years prior to the incident and she had two daughters, Pritpal and Sharanpal. The appellant started ill-treating Tejinder Kaur right from the beginning and used to pressurize her to bring money from her parents. About four months prior to the incident, which took place on 22.3.1989, the appellant took Tejinder Kaur to her mother’s house, who also resided in Nanded, and after making a demand of Rs.5,000/- he came back alone leaving his wife there. On the next day, he went to the house of his mother-in-law Chamanbai with a naked sword in his hand and asked Tejinder Kuar to accompany him and also bring Rs.5,000/-. The money could not be paid by the mother of the deceased. It is alleged that after Tejinder Kaur came back to her husband’s house, she sent some letters to her mother through a milk vendor complaining about ill-treatment being meted out to her. At about 3.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989, Chamanbai received information that Tejinder Kaur had received burn injuries and she was admitted in the Civil Hospital. She immediately rushed to the hospital and on enquiry Tejinder Kaur disclosed that she was set ablaze by the accused by pouring kerosene on her person. Chamanbai along with her son Sher Singh went to Police Station Wazirabad, where an FIR of the incident was lodged at 6.30 p.m. P.S.I. Murkute visited the house of the appellant at 7.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989 which consisted of only one room and seized half burnt sari, petticoat, woolen blanket, mattresses, quilt, pillow, etc. He found two sunmics cots partially burnt, a stove, a kerosene tin and an empty gas cylinder. He then visited the hospital and instructed Head Constable PW.10 Dattatray Vinkar to record the statement of Tejinder Kaur when she regained consciousness. Tejinder Kaur regained consciousness at about 10.30 p.m., information regarding which was given by her brother PW.4 Sher Singh to Head Constable Dattatray Vinkar. The Head Constable immediately summoned PW.9 Dr. Mohammad Khursheed Ahmad, Duty Medical Officer, who examined the injured and found her conscious. Thereafter, the statement of Tejinder Kaur was recorded by PW.10 where she gave details of the occurrence, namely, demand of dowry by the appellant and how the appellant had set her on fire by pouring kerosene. The statement Ex.31 was recorded by PW.10 and Dr. Khursheed Ahmad made an endorsement thereon that the patient was conscious throughout her statement. At about 00.45 hours on 23.3.1989 Tejinder Kaur succumbed to her injuries. After inquest had been held, the body was sent for post mortem examination, which was carried out by two doctors who found 83% burns thereon. According to the opinion of the doctors, the death was due to the extensive burns which caused hypovolenic and neurogenic shock leading to cardio- respiratory failure. The seized clothes were sent for medical examination and the report thereof indicated presence of kerosene.
3.After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 498-A and 302 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His main defence was that he had never made any demand for money and in fact he had deposited some money in the account of Tejinder Kaur and had also purchased land in her name. He further stated in his statement which was given in writing that T
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22.(Para11)
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22. (Para 11)
Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 439. (Para 11)
Tilkeshwar Singh and others vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1956 SC 238 (Para 14)
State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Ram (1997) 10 SCC 675. (Para 11)
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 517. (Para 11)
Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2000) 1 SCC 358. (Para 4)
Chandra Bihari Gautam v. State of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 208). (Para 4)
Pothakamuri Srinivasulu v. State of AP (2002) 6 SCC 399. (Para 11)
State of Karnataka v. Shariff (2003) 2 SCC 473. (Para11)
Vidhya Devi v. State of Haryana (2004) 9 SCC 476. (Para 12)
In Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 9 SCC 257. (Para 12)
Gopalsingh v. State of M.P. 1972(3) SCC 268. (Para 11)
K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor (1976) 3 SCC 618. (Para 11)
Ram Lakhan Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 268. (Para 14)
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC 552. (Para 11)
Padmaben Shamalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (1991) 1 SCC 744. (Para 11)
Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat (1992) 4 SCC 69. (Para 11)
Jai Prakash and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1998) 7 SCC 284. (Para 11)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.