The admissibility and credibility of dying declarations, the impact of the deceased's mental state on the statements made, the importance of motive in a criminal trial, and the standard of proof for the prosecution and defense were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Ram Niwas and his wife Kamlesh : the appellant No.1 and 2 respectively, have been convicted vide impugned judgment dated September 19, 2000 for having murdered late Prahlad, the father of Ram Niwas, and needless to state, the father-in-law of Kamlesh. Vide order on sentence dated September 23, 2000 the two have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that both of them burnt Prahlad after pouring kerosene on him.

3. That Prahlad suffered burn injuries at around 7.30 PM on August 12, 1997 on the terrace of his house in village Badli is not in dispute. The issue is : did the appellants set him on fire.

4. Appellant No.1 expired on January 18, 2007, and the order dated September 18, 2013 records that qua him the appeal is abated. Thus, the present decision decides the fate of Kamlesh.

5. The conviction has been sustained believing the first dying declaration made by Prahlad to Dr. Ravneet Kaur PW-8, who authored the MLC Ex.PW-9/A, in which she recorded that the history of how he suffered burn injuries, as told to her by the patient was that his elder son and daughter-in-law set him on fire as also the second dying declaration, being the statement Ex.PW-11/A made by Prahalad to SI Gurnam Singh PW-11, who reached JPN Hospital after DD No.82B, Ex.PW-1/A, was recorded by the duty Constable at P.S.Samaipur Badli, in which Prahlad stated that his son Ram Niwas and his daughter-in-law Kamlesh set him on fire after pouring kerosene oil on him.

6. SI Gurnam Singh got the FIR Ex.PW-9/A registered on the statement Ex.PW-11/A made by Prahlad and at the spot drew up the rough site plan Ex.PW-11/C and seized a match box containing matchstick soaked in kerosene oil, a purse and partly burnt clothes as mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW-6/A.

7. The defence of the two accused was that Prahlad was suffering from schizophrenia used to run away from the house. He used to throw stones on others and would even move around naked when in a state of paranoia and therefore his statements could not be believed and secondly that Ram Niwas was not in the house when Prahlad suffered burn injuries and this was proof of falsness of his statements.

8. Having perused the testimony of Dr. Ravneet Kaur, the author of the MLC of Prahlad, and having perused the testimony of SI Gurnam Singh, who wrote the statement Ex.PW-11/.A made by Prahlad to him, learned counsel for Kamlesh frankly concedes that the credibility of their testimony has not been dented during cross-examination and thus the statements made by Prahlad to the doctor and the police officer as regards the cause of his death would stand the scrutiny of proved dying declarations subject to the answer to the question : whether if proved that Prahlad had suicidal tendencies and was a patient of schizophrenia, the effect thereof on the statements made by Prahlad.

9. Indeed, in the decision reported as (2009) 13 SCC 270 Bawa Ram & Anr. vs. Union Territory Chandigarh, the Supreme Court opined that a statement made by a person having suicidal tendency i.e. not of sound mind always, could not be the basis of a conviction because it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction on the basis of such kind of dying declarations.

10. The motive for the crime is stated to be a dispute between the father and the son concerning partition of the house where Prahlad resided with his two sons, their wives and children.

11. Motive is accepted as a double edged weapon. In the hands of the prosecution to nail the accused. In the hands of the accused, to prove motive of false implication.

12. It is trite that at a criminal trial whereas the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the standard of defence is akin to one at a civil trial i.e. the preponderance of probability.

13. To establish the deceased suffering from schizophrenia, we find that Surinder Singh DW-2, the record keeper of RML Hospital produced the summoned record of the ps