(May 22, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125201

2001-DLT-93-764 :: 2001-AD (Del)-5-721

MOHAMMAD ISLAM Vs. State (National Capital Territory of Delhi)

Usha Mehra

( 1 ) A document as valuable as a dying declaration is supposed to be fool-proof, it must incorporate the particulars which it is supposed to contain. A dying declaration enjoys almost a sacrosanct status as a piece of evidence as it comes from the mouth of a person who is about to die and at-that stage of life he is not likely to make a false statement.

( 2 ) KEEPING the above principles of law in view, we have to see whether on the basis of statement made by the deceased Mohd. Zafar Imam @ Pan Babu aged about 15 years vide Ex. Public Witness-17/a, conviction and sentence of the appellant can be sustained. Whether the statement of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short the I. O.) vide Ex. Public Witness-17/a enjoys the status of a dying declaration ? Is it a foolproof evidence to prove that it was the appellant who burnt the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on the deceased on 6/04/1994 ?

( 3 ) CHALLENGE to the impugned order of conviction and sentence is primarily on the grounds ; (i) that the dying decla