IMPORTANT POINT : Motive is a thing which is primarily known to accused himself and it may not possible for prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular crime.

Judgment :

Mohan Lal, J.

Instant Criminal Conviction Appeal is directed by the appellants against the judgment and orders dated 19-09-2018 & 03-10-2018 rendered by the court of Ld. Pr. Sessions Judge Udhampur in file Challan No. 6 titled State V/S Gian Chand and Ors., whereby, appellants have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- each in FIR No. 67/2013 of P/S Udhampur for commission of offence u/s 302/34 RPC for commission of murder of one Vandna Sharma by burning. The trial judge has also made a reference being Cr. Ref. No.1199/PDSJU dated 09-10- 2018 to this court u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for confirmation of the sentence. Aggrieved of, and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, appellants/convict have questioned it’s legality, propriety and correctness on the following grounds:-

(i) that the impugned judgment and order are against facts and law, the sole basis is the artificially created material in the form of two dying declarations from the women with 95% burns over her body and evidenced by police officials, Magistrate with doubtful presence of father and husband of the deceased both speaking differently and opposite, the manner method language script of the declarations recording the attestation certification etc. in absence of the Medical Officer is highly unnatural and improbable, the trial court failed to follow the correct legal principles in the evaluation and reached to wrong conclusion;

(ii) that the investigation of the case has been casual, improper, unreasonably delayed, changing several officials etc., there appears negligence in timely inspection of the site and default in recording versions of relatives of the deceased including her children, sister-in-law and other who rushed to the spot on seeing her in inflames, doused the fire and transported to Hospital, the true occurrence therefore remained unrevealed, the court’s omission to consider this important aspect has caused miscarriage of justice;

(iii) that the trial court committed material illegality while declining application u/s 272 Cr.PC with respect to the statement of Sh. Aagya Ram recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, the error seriously prejudiced the case and led to incorrect decision;

2. Sh. S.C. Gupta Ld. Counsel for appellants/convict has submitted the written arguments in addition to his oral arguments adduced at the time of hearing, and has sought the setting aside/quashment of the impugned judgment and acquittal of the appellants/convicts on the following counts:-

(i) It is argued, that both the statements/dying declarations of victim Vandna Sharma dated 14-03-2013 & 21-03-2013 are in the handwriting of Parshotam Singh Head Constable in Urdu Language, whereas, Ghanshyam Singh (I.O) firstly claims to be the author of dying declaration/statement dated 21-03-2013, but lateron admits that the dying declarations has been written by Parshotam Singh under his dictation, whereas, Parshotam Singh has not signed this statement;

(ii) It is argued, that in regard to the dying declaration/statement dated 14-03-2013, there are two (2) witnesses to it namely, Dhani Ram (f/o the victim) & Sat Pal (husband of the victim), whereas, Sat Pal has turned hostile and father of the victim has not fully supported the version recorded in the said statement and has only stated that after being set on fire by the accused persons the victim ran outside the room and fell unconscious;

(iii) It is argued, that both the statements/dying declarations dated 14-03-2013 & 21-03-2013 have been recorded on the asking of police, statement dated 21-03-2013 is recorded in presence of Magistrate namely Manjeet Singh who certifies to the said extent, the victim narrated in Dogri Language which was translated by Ghanshyam Singh and recorded by Parshotam Singh in