SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Raj) 82

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Shiv Kumar Sharma, Fateh Chand Bansal
Madan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2001
Decided On : 01/23/2004

Advocates Appeared:
A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant
Rizwan Alvi, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents

The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict scrutiny of dying declarations and the importance of considering the attendant facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:

Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 498A - The court discussed the dying declaration of the deceased, the reliability of the statement, and the conduct of the witnesses. It highlighted the need for strict scrutiny of dying declarations and the importance of considering the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. The court also emphasized the significance of statements from disinterested persons and the impact of police involvement on the declaration's credibility.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant and co-accused were indicted for the murder of Smt. Parvati. The deceased had sustained burn injuries and made a dying declaration accusing the appellant of setting her ablaze. However, the court found discrepancies in the evidence and conduct of the witnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dying declaration was the result of coaching and tutoring by the deceased's relatives. It also noted the unnatural conduct of a witness and the lack of proper scrutiny by the lower court. As a result, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Issues: Reliability of the dying declaration, conduct of witnesses, scrutiny of evidence, and the impact of police involvement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strict scrutiny of dying declarations and the importance of considering the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. It also highlighted the significance of statements from disinterested persons and the impact of police involvement on the declaration's credibility.

Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Judgment

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-The appellant and co-accused Gyarsi were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 15/200 1 (5/98) for having committed murder of Smt. Parvati. The learned trial Judge vide Judgment dated August 23, 2001 acquitted co-accused Gyarsi but convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:

Under Section 302 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life arid fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to further suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. Under Section 498A IPC To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 500 in default to turther suffer 1, 1/2 months simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. On November 19, 1997 while Smt. Parvati (now deceased) was admitted in JLN Hospital Ajmer, SHO Police Station Alwar Gate Ajmer recorded her parcha bayan (Ex.P-12). In the Parcha Bayan Parvati stated that a day before i.e. on November 18, 1997 at 11.00 PM her husband Madan (appellant) poured kerosine oil on her and set her ablaze. He used to demand dowry, ornaments and Scooter which could not be met theretore he decided to kill her. Nawal Kishore, her Devar (brother in law) then called a doctor to treat her in the house. Thereafter her father brought her to the Government Hospital. Parcha Bayan of Parvati was taken by constable Devendra Singh (PW. 15) and he gave it to Mahila police station at 9.30 PM, where a case under Sections 307 and 498A IPC was registered against the appellant and investigation commenced. On November 24, 1997 Parvati succumbed to her injuries and case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer. Charges under Sections 302 and 498A IPC were framed. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

3. We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scanned the record.

4. Dr. L.N. Singaksh (PW.10) conducted post mortem on November 24, 1997 on the dead body of Parvati and found that there were old flame burns on the face, abdomen, whole of back, back of chest, upper limbs, both thighs. External genitals were healthy. The burnt areas were discharging pus. Duration of burn was about six days and death was caused as a result of ante mortem flame burns.

5. At the out set we must mention some peculiar features of the case noticed by us. They are: (i Dr. Ashok Nagarwal (PW.1) who attended Parvati at her house on November 19, 1997 at 4.00 AM, stated in his deposition that he knew Parvati as she used to visit his clinic for her treatment. After going to the house when he found burns on the person of Parvati, he advised her relatives to take her to JLN Hospital. At that time Parvati told him that because of fall of kerosene-chimney she had sustained burns. Doctor Ashok Nagarwal was not declared hostile by the prosecution.

(ii) Dr. R.K. Mathur, (PW.5) Medical Jurist of JLN Hospital examined Parvati, while she was admitted in Female surgical ward No. 3. In his deposition Dr. R.K. Mathur stated that when he attended Parvati she was conscious. There were 70% burns on her body. Her brother Laxman Singh was present at the time of her clinical examination and at that time Parvati told him (Dr. Mathur) that on November 18, 1997 around 11.30 PM while she was cooking food on stove, she sustained burns. In the injury report (Ex.P-5) which was drawn on November 19, 1997 at 6.20 PM. Dr. R.K. Mathur incorporated following remarks:

“Brought by Laxman Singh brother. Informed to P.S. Alwar gate Mahendra Singh. H/o Burn at 11.30 PM on 18-11-97 by stove while cooking.”

(iii) Mahe








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top