IMPORTANT POINT
The law is well settled that if the declaration is made voluntarily and truthfully by a person who is physically in a condition to make such statement, then there is no impediment in relying on such a declaration.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A and 304-B -Death of deceased by burn injuries in matrimonial home-Prosecution of husband and mother in law and brother in laws ’wife of deceased for pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal- Dismissed except with a modification in sentence of imprisonment from imprisonment for life to imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC-Appeal-Instantly dying declaration recorded by Dr. (PW-4) was also signed by appellant 1 which indicated that appellant 1 was present when statement was recorded- Nothing on record to suggest that any of the relation of deceased was present to influence Dr. PW-4-Admittedly, the death of deceased was caused by burns i.e. otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage.- The complainant (PW-9) father of the deceased stated that his daughter was harassed for not bringing sufficient dowry-Both courts came to definite conclusion that soon before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his relatives in connection with demand for dowry.- Sessions Judge recorded cogent and convincing reasons for convicting appellants for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.- Appellants were sentenced for life for offence under Section 304-B IPC by trial Court and High Court already considered facts and circumstances of case and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years-No other circumstances to reduce it to minimum sentence of seven years-Appeal dismissed (Paras 16 to 24)
       Facts of the Case :
        Deceased herein in the instant case died due to burn injuries in matrimonial home. Appellants husband and mother in law and brother in laws ’wife of deceased were prosecuted for pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. Trial Court convicted appellants for said offences. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court except with a modification in sentence of imprisonment from imprisonment for life to imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Both courts came to definite conclusion that soon before her death deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his relatives in connection with demand for dowry. Sessions Judge recorded cogent and convincing reasons for convicting appellants for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. Appellants were sentenced for life for offence under Section 304-B IPC by trial Court and High Court already considered facts and circumstances of case and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years. No other circumstances to reduce it to minimum sentence of seven years. Appeal was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

The appellants in this case were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, besides, payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of which to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Their appeal against the said judgment and conviction to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh got dismissed except with a modification in the sentence of imprisonment from imprisonment for life to imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.4.2005 on receipt of a telephonic message from the Incharge, Police Post, General Hospital, Bhiwani regarding admission of Meena Devi wife of Manoj Kumar (appellant no.1) resident of Village Hetampura in burnt condition, ASI Chattarmal (PW- 11) of P.S. Sadar,Bhiwani along with other police officials reached the said hospital and collected medical ruqa (memo) alongwith medico-legal report of injured Meena. After obtaining the opinion of the Doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement when he brought the Duty Magistrate to record her statement in the hospital, the Doctor had already referred her to PGIMS Rohtak. Thereafter, he alongwith Magistrate reached PGIMS, Rohtak and collected two medical ruqas from Incharge, Police Post, PGIMS Rohtak out of which one was regarding death of Meena. Then he reached in the gallery of emergency ward where complainant Vedpal (PW-9) met him and got recorded his statement (Ex.PA). It is alleged by the complainant- Vedpal (PW-9) that he had one daughter and two sons. His daughter was married with Manoj (appellant no.1) son of Mahabir about five years earlier (the actual date of marriage found to be 6.05.2000) to the incident that had occurred on 14.04.2005. He further stated that in the marriage of his daughter, he had given dowry beyond his financial capacity. However, his daughter on her return from her matrimonial home for the first time told him that her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry articles that were given in marriage. The complainant had given double bed, T.V., fridge, cooler, sofa set, almirah, 21 utensils and clothes etc., besides, Rs.2100/- in cash. When the daughter of the complainant (PW-9) went to her matrimonial home for the second time, his son-in-law Manoj (appellant no.1), the mother-in-law of his daughter namely Chameli Devi (appellant no.2), the father-in-law namely Mahabir (since acquitted) and Jethani (husband's elder brother's wife) of his daughter namely Suman (appellant no.3) raised a demand for a motor cycle and started torturing her (beating) for this. Therefore, Meena Devi (deceased) started living with him (complainant). She stayed with her father (complainant) for fourteen months. About ten months earlier from the date of incident that occurred on 14.04.2005, the complainant (PW-9) made his daughter understand and sent her back in the presence of panchayat of Hetampura and Sant Mann Singh s/o Chandu Ram r/o Hissar. However, even then the accused were demanding a motor cycle and kept troubling his daughter for dowry. On 14.04.2005, at about 8.00 a.m, Mahabir informed him on telephone from the Hospital at Bhiwani that Meena Devi (deceased) had been admitted in the Government Hospital, Bhiwani with burn injuries. On receiving this information, the complainant (PW-9) and Dayanand s/o Jogi Ram and his brother Shamsher reached the Hospital at Bhiwani. There they came to know that Meena Devi (deceased) had been referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Then they all reached PGIMS, Rohtak where he met his daughter in the emergency ward of PGIMS, Rohtak. His daughter told him that in the morning on that day, her mother-in-law namely

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 613

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAT.S.THAKUR, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.MANOJ - APPELLANTSVersusSTATE OF HARYANA - RESPONDENTCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1853 OF 2012Decided on : JULY 9,2013.

IMPORTANT POINT The law is well settled that if the declaration is made voluntarily and truthfully by a person who is physically in a condition to make such statement, then there is no impediment in relying on such a declaration.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S.THAKUR, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.
MANOJ - APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1853 OF 2012
Decided on : JULY 9,2013.

IMPORTANT POINT
The law is well settled that if the declaration is made voluntarily and truthfully by a person who is physically in a condition to make such statement, then there is no impediment in relying on such a declaration.