Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
GIRI RAJ KISHORE & ORS. - Appellants
versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A.459/2000
Decided On : 16-03-2016
IPC - Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302/34 IPC - The court analyzed the dying declarations, recovery of kerosene can and burnt nicker, and the MLC indicating alcohol intake. The court also discussed the doctrine 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' and the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 (II) IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was set on fire by the appellants following a dispute over repayment of a loan. The deceased made dying declarations, and the appellants were arrested and charged. The court analyzed the evidence and the statements of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found Appellant No.1 guilty based on consistent statements of the deceased and his sister. Appellant No.2 was acquitted due to lack of evidence and his potential juvenility.
Issues: The key issues were the credibility of the dying declarations, the involvement of each appellant, and the applicability of Section 302 or Section 304 (II) IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the consistency of witness statements, the doctrine 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus', and the circumstances of the incident to determine the guilt and appropriate charge for the appellants.
Final Decision: Appellant No.1's conviction was converted to Section 304 (II) IPC, and he was sentenced to the period already undergone in custody. Appellant No.2 was acquitted of all charges.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The appellants before us seek to assail the judgment dated February 24, 2000 convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated March 03, 2000 passed consequently, whereby imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- each has been imposed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - Shahdara, Delhi.
2. At the outset, we venture to pithily capture the contours of the incident and the steps taken during investigation that are germane to the adjudication of the present appeal whilst eschewing unnecessary particulars to avoid prolixity.
3. On the fateful day – October 20, 1996, in the afternoon around 01:30/02:00 PM the deceased Lallu Kashyap consumed liquor in the company of the appellants : Giri Raj Kishore and Girdhari Lal @ Pinki at the house of his brother-in-law - Rakesh located at 117, B Block, Gali No. 3, Meet Nagar, Delhi. The appellants were related to Rakesh (not examined during trial) being his nephew and were also residing with him at the said address. According to the prosecution, Appellant No.2 - Girdhari Lal @ Pinki asked Lallu Kashyap to return Rs.1,000/- which was advanced to him by Rakesh when he needed money for medical treatment. Lallu Kashyap told that he had not recovered fully and would return the money once he recovered fully and started earning. The appellants are stated to have lost temper and Appellant No.1 remarked that Lallu Kashyap should be taught a lesson. Consequently, Appellant No.2 got a can of kerosene oil and poured kerosene on Lallu Kashyap. Appellant No.1 lit fire with the help of a matchstick and set Lallu Kashyap on fire. Lallu Kashyap came out in the gali outside the house and rolled on the ground in order to douse the flames. After having successfully extinguished the flames, Lallu Kashyap went to the house of his sister Shiv Rani PW-1 at Bhajanpura and made the first dying declaration to her of how he was set on fire.
4. Thereafter, Lallu Kashyap was shifted to G.T.B. Hospital by ASI Bhagwan Dass - PCR (not examined during course of investigation and trial). At around 04:05/04:15 PM, Dr.R.K.Nagar PW-8, examined Lallu Kashyap and prepared the MLC, Ex.PW-8/A, wherein it was noted that Lallu Kashyap was unfit for statement and burns were suffered over the entire body except some portions of thighs and legs. Further, presence of alcohol was also suspected.
5. Thereafter, at 04.35 PM the Duty Constable deputed at G.T.B. Hospital telephonically intimated P.S.Nand Nagari at 04:35 PM that one Lallu Kashyap had been admitted in G.T.B. Hospital by ASI Bhagwan Dass who had brought him from House No.185/34, Durga Gali No.2, Kachhi Colony. It was further stated that Lallu Kashyap had disclosed that after having suffered burn injuries at Meet Nagar he reached the house of his sister at Bhajanpura. The said information was duly recorded at P.S.Nand Nagari vide DD No.29B Ex.PW-9/A. Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to SI Avdesh Kumar PW-9 who along with Ct.Surender (not examined during trial) reached G.T.B. Hospital. The patient had already been declared not fit for statement. No eye-witness could be found at the hospital. In view of such circumstances, DD No.29B was kept pending.
6. As deposed to by Shiv Rani PW-1 before the Court, Lallu Kashyap informed her in hospital at around 09:00 PM that Appellant No.1 had set him on fire.
7. Thereafter, at 11:45 PM Lallu Kashyap was declared fit for statement by a doctor (not examined during trial). In furtherance thereof, SI Avdesh Kumar attempted to make enquiries from Lallu Kashyap but found that he was not in a state to give a clear statement since he was unable to state the place of occurrence and how he had sustained the injuries.
8. On October 22, 1996, at around 04:00 PM, SI Avdesh Kumar along with Ct.Manoj Kumar PW-6 arrived at G.T.B. Hospital. SI Avdesh Kumar recorded the statement/fardbayan Ex.PW-9/B of Lallu Kashyap. He obtained the left thumb impre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
