Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
GAURI SHANKAR & ANR. - Appellants
versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A.854/2001
Decided On : 04-05-2016
Mr.Ratnakar, Advocate
Mr.Varun Goswami, APP SI Sachin Yadav, PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi
The significance of appraising the circumstances under which dying declarations are recorded, the need for circumspection when dealing with multiple dying declarations, and the importance of assessing the reliability of evidence, especially the testimony of a child witness.
Headnote:
Dying Declarations - Murder - [IPC Section 302, 498A, 304B] - The court discussed the contradictory dying declarations made by the deceased, the importance of appraising the circumstances under which the dying declaration was recorded, and the blemishes that could discredit a dying declaration. The court emphasized the need for circumspection when dealing with multiple dying declarations and the significance of other available evidence, such as the post-mortem report and photographs, in determining the truth.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased suffered burn injuries and made contradictory dying declarations, leading to the conviction of the appellants for murder. The court analyzed the dying declarations, other available evidence, and the testimony of a child witness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contradictory dying declarations and shaky testimony of the child witness raised doubts about the guilt of the appellants, leading to the acquittal of the appellants and the setting aside of the impugned judgment and order on sentence.
Issues: Contradictory dying declarations, reliability of evidence, testimony of a child witness
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumspection when dealing with multiple dying declarations and the significance of other available evidence, such as the post-mortem report and photographs, in determining the truth. The court also highlighted the importance of assessing the reliability of evidence, especially the testimony of a child witness.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment convicting the appellants was set aside, and the order on sentence was also set aside. The appellants' bail bonds were discharged, and a copy of the decision was to be sent to the Superintendant Central Jail Tihar for updating the jail record.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The appellants did not appear nor counsel appeared in spite of their presence secured through bailable warrants issued and thus non-bailable warrants were issued on April 22, 2016 to secure their presence. The appellants have appeared in Court today with their counsel and since arguments would be heard and decision pronounced today itself we recall the non-bailable warrants issued; which are cancelled.
2. HC Rajbir Singh PW-16 was the first police officer to reach House No.L-267, Shastri Nagar where deceased Manju had suffered burn injuries in a room on the second floor. Her husband Santosh and her in-laws : Gauri Shankar and Rama Devi (the appellants) were present. As deposed to by Rajbir Singh he removed Manju and her husband as also took along with him Gauri Shankar to JPN Hospital in the PCR Van of which he was the in-charge. At the hospital, Dr.Khem Chand PW-4 recorded MLC Ex.PW-4/A of Manju, in which history of the burn wounds suffered by her was recorded as the result of accidental burn by a burst of stove while Manju was preparing tea.
3. HC Satvir Singh PW-15 was posted as the Duty Officer at PS Sarai Rohilla, within jurisdiction whereof Shastri Nagar fell, and he recorded DD No.19A, Ex.PW-15/A of information being received from the police control room that a husband and a wife had fought at House No.L-267, Shastri Nagar and the wife had been set on fire, copy whereof was handed over to SI Daya Prakash PW-23 who accompanied by Ct.Ram Karan PW-1 reached the house and learnt that the injured lady called Manju had been removed to the hospital. Leaving Ct.Ram Karan to guard the spot he reached the hospital and obtained Manju’s MLC Ex.PW-4/A and because she was fit for statement recorded her statement Ex.PW-23/A, in which Manju disclosed that she was residing in the house in question with her family. Her husband returned in the night after attending a marriage function and demanded food and this resulted in a verbal altercation between the two. She put kerosene oil in a kerosene stove when suddenly kerosene oil sprinkled out from the nozzle and fell on her face and front side. She was on fire. She threw her sweater on the sofa. Her husband tried to douse the flames. Somebody rang up the police and she was rushed to the hospital in the PCR Van.
4. Since Manju died after 5 days of the incident, aforesaid two statements, the first recorded in the MLC and the second, which would be the first dying declaration of Manju would be exculpatory of the family members of Manju because the cause of her catching fire is accidental and not homicidal. With reference to the MLC we are unable to say whether it was recorded on Manju’s statement or that of her husband or her father-in-law because the history of the burns has been recorded without throwing any light as to who said said fact to Dr.Khem Chand.
5. Things took a turn when in the evening of the same day after Ex.PW-23/A was recorded, Manju made the statement Ex.PW-22/C to SI Daya Prakash in the presence of Dr.Sandeep Verma PW-22 who made an endorsement Ex.PW-22/A in token of having attested the statement, in which statement Manju stated that excessive drinking habit of her husband was the cause of the matrimonial discord. The previous night he returned home in a drunken condition. Being late night she responded late when her husband knocked the door, which angered him. He began to fight with her and pushed her on the sofa. Her in-laws who resided on the ground floor came up. Her mother-in-law was having kerosene oil in a bottle which she threw on her and her father-in-law exhorted her husband to set her on fire, at which her husband set her on fire.
6. The SDM Sh.G.Sudhakar PW-14 had to be summoned, who recorded Manju’s statement Ex.PW-14/A in which she absolved her husband stating that she and her husband used to quarrel on petty issues. The previous night they had a quarrel. Her mother-in-law and father-in-law came from the ground floor to the s
