Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, B.S. Walia, JJ.
Darshan Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of J&K - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 40/2012, Cr. MA No. 46/2014 and Confirm. No. 14/2012
Decided On : 02-03-2015
Conviction - Offences under Sections 302, 498-A read with section 34 RPC - [Sections 302, 498-A read with section 34 RPC] - The court discussed the dying declaration, the value of dying declaration, and the flaws in the investigation. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborating a dying declaration and the need for caution in relying on it. The court found that the guilt against the accused was not proved beyond a shadow of doubt and acquitted the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Manmeet Kour, was burnt to death three months after her marriage. The prosecution alleged that the accused taunted and tortured her for not bringing dowry. The accused denied complicity and claimed innocence, stating that the deceased was not in a position to speak due to her injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the guilt against the accused was not proved beyond a shadow of doubt and acquitted the accused.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of the dying declaration, the sufficiency of evidence, and the flaws in the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborating a dying declaration and the need for caution in relying on it. The court also highlighted the flaws in the investigation and the lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.
Final Decision: The accused were acquitted, and the judgment and the order of sentence were set aside. The reference for confirmation was rejected, and the accused were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
1. Vide Judgment impugned dated 03.04.2012, learned Sessions Judge, Poonch has convicted the appellants for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with section 34 RPC and vide order dated 04.04.2012 has awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 34 RPC and two years imprisonment for the offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 RPC. All the sentences to run concurrently. In case of default in paying fine, the accused shall have to undergo imprisonment for two months. The record of the case has been submitted in terms of Section 374 Cr.P.C. for the confirmation of the sentence of life imprisonment.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants projected:
(a) None of the prosecution witnesses have seen the actual occurrence.
(b) The dying declaration EX. PW-6-I-S has been cited as a sole basis to the actual occurrence, when the said dying declaration is suspicious as the manner and method of recording such statement is shrouded in mystery. Same has not been recorded in presence of any independent witness.
(c) The investigating officer is shown to have recorded the statement in presence of Sardar Ishar Singh and Surinder Singh, relatives of the deceased. No explanation has been tendered for non inclusion of any independent witness.
(d) The physical condition as emerge from the evidence both medical and another is such which would suggest that the deceased was not in a position to make any statement.
(e) The dying declaration has numerous defects, so in absence of corroboration, same could not be a sole base for recording conviction.
(f) FIR is shown to have been lodged and registered on 19.05.2007 but copy of the FIR has been received in the office of the Magistrate, Poonch on 22.05.2007, when the office of the magistrate is located at a short distance from the police station. Therefore, concoction in the content of the report and in FIR has taken place.
3. While relying on various judgment of the hon'ble Apex Court, which shall be referred to hereinafter, submitted that the judgment impugned is unsustainable.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State with all vehemence submitted that:
(i) a young 28 years old lady just after three months of her marriage has been burnt to death.
(ii) Immediately after her marriage, her life was made hell by the accused by taunting and torturing her mentally for want of dowry.
(iii) The prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. The evidence as produced is sufficient which beyond any shadow of doubt has proved that the accused have committed the offences for which they have been convicted.
(iv) The judgment impugned passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence correctly.
(v) The dying declaration as recorded by the investigation officer is inconsonance with law. Investigation officer has explained that he had asked the doctor to remain present which the doctor has refused by saying that the hospital at Ludhiana being a private hospital, therefore, they do not associate themselves with recording of the statements. He has also relied on the judgment rendered by hon'ble Apex Court which shall be referred to hereinafter finally prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. The prosecution as unfolded is that deceased Manmeet Kour was married to accused No. 1 just three months prior to the occurrence. During those three months, accused No. 1 and 2 used to taunt her and used to ask her as to why she did not bring dowry. On the date of occurrence i.e. 19.05.2007 at about quarter to 5 PM when Manmeet Kour (deceased) was in her home, her husband accused No. 1 (Darshan Singh) was also there, accused No. 2 Amrit Kour (sister of accused No. 1) came there and asked Manmeet Kour (deceased) to pick up the tin as had fallen due to wind which she refused. As a result whereof in
AI
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
