The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the court's duty to carefully examine the admissibility and reliability of evidence, especially dying declarations, in criminal cases.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.:— (OPEN COURT)

1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 18.8.2011 and order on sentence dated 25.8.2011 whereby the learned ASJ (Karkardooma Courts) convicted the appellant, Raja Ram for the offence under section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, and imposed a fine of Rs,7000/-. It was further added that in case of default of payment of fine, he shall suffer additional imprisonment for one year.

2. The prosecution case was that on 17.06.2009 at about 11.00 am, a quarrel took place between Mamta, the deceased and her husband Raja Ram, the appellant herein, over household expenses and excessive consumption of liquor by the latter. Raja dragged his wife to the gali (street) and slapped her. She stayed out for about an hour, and upon feeling giddy, she went inside the house and slept. Thereafter, she again demanded money from her husband for household expenses. This time he leveled allegations that she had been giving his hard earned money to her parents. When she objected to these allegations, he poured kerosene oil from a lantern on her body, and lit her on fire with a matchstick. However, when he saw people from the locality gathering there, he tried to extinguish the fire by pouring a bucket of water. He then removed Mamta to trauma centre from where she was taken to LNJP Hospital. Investigation was taken up, and her statement was recorded at the hospital. Later, she succumbed to her burn injuries; her body was sent for post-mortem. The appellant was arrested in the case and charged for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, and placed on record medical and forensic evidence to prove its case. In defence, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant. The defence version, borne out from the defence witnesses, and the appellant’s statement under section 313, CrPC was that Mamta had committed suicide. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, rejected this defence, and convicted the accused for the offence of murder punishable under section 302, IPC. He was sentenced in the manner aforementioned.

4. The Trial Court based its finding of guilt on the following circumstances which it held had been proved:

a) written dying declaration recorded by SI Deshwal in the presence of Dr. Pranay Kapur;

b) account of the oral dying declaration made by PW-1 Ram Bhajan, father of deceased Mamta;

c) medical evidence indicating burn injuries to be the cause of death;

d) scientific evidence indicating that the burnt clothes and ashes thereof contained residue of kerosene. The court did not rely on the testimony of PW-10 Parul and PW-11 Dhruv (both children of the deceased and the appellant) on the ground that they had been tutored. Furthermore, the learned ASJ disbelieved the testimonies of defence witnesses through which the defence of suicide was sought to be proved.

5. During the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant highlighted the following exonerating circumstances which were not given due weight by the learned ASJ in the impugned judgment:

The exonerating depositions (a version contrary to their section 164, CrPC statements) made by alleged eye witnesses PW-10 Parul and PW-11 Dhruv (both children from the appellant’s marriage with the deceased) both of whom stated that their father did not set Mamta on fire; they also deposed that their earlier statements recorded by the Magistrate had been tutored as per their maternal grandmother’s instructions.

Delay in recording statements under section 161, CrPC and section 164, CrPC of alleged eye witnesses Parul and Dhruv.

Delay in recording PW-1 Ram Bhajan’s statement under section 161, CrPC

Both PW-8 and PW-9 were not able to identify as to who had declared Mamta fit for giving statement to police. Also, non-examination of such doctor who had declared her fit.

Time