Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2612
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.Ravindra Bhat, S.P.Garg, JJ.
Manmohan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State (G.N.C.T of Delhi) - Resopndent
CrL. A. No. 448 of 2011 and Crl. M.B. No. 547 of 2012
Decided On : 26-04-2012
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP
The judgment emphasizes the significance of prompt lodging of FIR, the need for corroboration of dying declaration, and the duty of the investigating officer to conduct a thorough and credible investigation.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Criminal Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for setting his sister-in-law on fire and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant poured kerosene on the victim and lit fire, resulting in her death. The appellant denied his involvement and claimed false implication by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including the dying declaration. It criticized the conduct of the investigating officer and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the accusation against the appellant. The court acquitted the accused and directed the Police Commissioner to initiate necessary departmental action against the investigating officer.
Issues: Discrepancies in testimonies, genuineness of dying declaration, conduct of investigating officer, delay in lodging FIR, and lack of corroboration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt lodging of FIR, the need for corroboration of dying declaration, and the impact of inconsistencies in witness testimonies. It also highlighted the duty of the investigating officer to conduct a thorough and credible investigation.
Final Decision: The accused was acquitted, and the Police Commissioner was directed to initiate necessary departmental action against the investigating officer.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is filed by the Appellant Manmohan Singh questioning the judgment dated 28.10.2010 and order on sentence dated 30.10.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.126/2008 by which he was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. The prosecution alleges that on 20.02.2005 at about 05.00 P.M., the accused poured kerosene on his sister-in-law (Surjeet Kaur) who resided on the second floor of house No.D-208, Shiv Vihar, Chander Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi and lit fire. Daily Diary (DD) entry No.15 (Ex.PW-8/B) was recorded at police post Nihal Vihar, police station Nangloi, Delhi in this regard. On getting information about the incident, Gurdayal Singh (deceased’s husband) reached the spot and took her to ESI Hospital. ASI Dharam Singh to whom the investigation was assigned reached there, and after she was declared fit for statement, recorded her statement in which she stated that on 20.02.2005, Manmohan Singh, her brother-in-law was under the influence of liquor at 05.00 P.M. and told her that he would not spare her life. He picked up a bottle containing kerosene oil and poured its contents on her. Thereafter, he set her on fire with a match stick. Her sister-in-law (Manjeet Kaur) extinguished the fire by pouring water, and the accused fled the spot. The Investigating Officer (IO) after recording the statement reached the spot and seized a bottle containing a small quantity of kerosene from the kitchen. He did not initiate further action and kept the DD No.15 (Ex.PW8/B) pending. On 25.02.2005, he made an endorsement upon it and sent the rukka for registering the case under Section 307 IPC. He recorded the statements of witnesses conversant with the facts.
3. On 26.02.2005, while undergoing treatment, the victim succumbed to her injuries in the hospital and the investigation was taken over by Inspector B.R.Mann who conducted the inquest proceedings and sent the body for post-mortem. Dr.Ashish Jain conducted the post-mortem of the body. On 04.03.2005, on the basis of secret information, the accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. During investigation, the IO sent the exhibits to forensic laboratory and subsequently, collected its report. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused, who was duly charged and brought to trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. The statement made by the deceased to the IO on 20.02.2005 was treated as her dying declaration under Section 32 of Evidence Act. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication by the police in connivance with the deceased’s parents. Tarun Kannda appeared as DW-1 in his defence.
5. After appreciation of the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the Appellant has preferred the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 17 who were closely related to the deceased and whose presence at the spot was highly doubtful. The deceased, urged the counsel, accidently caught fire while preparing food in the kitchen and PW-3 (Gurdayal Singh), her husband in his earlier version given to the doctor confirmed it. Subsequently, under the pressure of his in-laws, he changed his version and blamed the Appellant for setting the deceased on fire. The accused who had assisted his brother to stay in his house due to his inability to arrange independent accommodation had no ulterior
