1981 Supreme(P&H) 144

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.R.Sharma and C.S.Tiwana JJ.
Manohar Lal And Others
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 1980,
Decided On : JUNE 4, 1981

The circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the death of a person are admissible in evidence in cases where the cause of that person's death comes into question.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - Dowry Death - Bride Burning - Dying Declarations - Admissibility - Letters written by deceased - Circumstances of transaction - Motive - Dying declarations - Appreciation of evidence - Conviction and sentence - Appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, a 31-year-old woman named Chainchal, was married to Manohar Lal, the appellant, in June 1978. The marriage was arranged by Chainchal's father, Jagdish Ram, who was a retired government servant. Chainchal had a Master's degree in Instrumental Music and was employed as a Nurse at Madhogarh in Mohindergarh district. Manohar Lal was earlier married to Usha Rani, who had divorced him by mutual consent. He had also married another girl from Pathankot but kept this fact a secret from Chainchal and her father. Manohar Lal was employed in the State Bank of India at Mukerian, but his mother, Ram Rakhi, lived at Hoshiarpur. Chainchal wanted to live with Manohar Lal at Mukerian, but he refused to take her with him and told her that she could either live at Hoshiarpur with his mother or at Patiala with her parents. He told her that under no circumstances would he take her to Mukerian. It is also alleged that he used to flirt with a married lady named Tripta in her presence. Chainchal was being maltreated by Ram Rakhi on the ground that she did not bring sufficient dowry. Ram Rakhi told Chainchal to cook her own meals, quarrelled with her over trifling matters, continued telling her that she should get out of her house, administered her taunts and proclaimed that she could get her son married again which would mean a dowry of about rupees one lac for him. Chainchal wrote several letters to her father, Jagdish Ram, complaining about the torture and maltreatment she was being subjected to by Manohar Lal and Ram Rakhi. On May 1, 1980, Chainchal suffered multiple extensive superficial burn injuries almost all over her body in the house of the appellants at about 8.30 A.M. Manohar Lal took her to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where she was examined by Dr. N.K. Gulati. Dr. Gulati observed that Chainchal had multiple extensive superficial burns all over her body except on both the soles and central portion of the back, with skin peeled off at many and different places. Chainchal was semi-conscious and was responding to louder questions. Her pulse was 124 per minute and feeble. Blood pressure was 60. Respiration was 28 per minute. The condition of the injured was dangerous due to burn injuries which were fresh. Dr. Gulati sent a letter to the Station House Officer, City Hoshiarpur, requesting him to make arrangements for recording the dying declaration of Chainchal. Pursuant to this letter, A. S. I. Dalip Singh went to the Hospital. He made an application on which Dr. Gulati made an endorsement that Chainchal was fit to make a statement. A. S. I. Dalip Singh then recorded the statement of Chainchal. In this statement, Chainchal stated that she did not burn herself and that her husband, mother-in-law and Dinesh, who had come to their house, had thrown oil on her and set her on fire. She also stated that her husband was not near her at that time. The recording of the statement concluded at 12.40 P.M. The Investigating Officer also made an application to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, praying that the dying declaration of Chainchal be recorded. In response to this request, Shri Mohinder Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, reached the Emergency Room of the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, recorded the statement of Chainchal at 12.45 P.M. In this statement, Chainchal stated that her husband had gone out somewhere-may be to have a look at the newspaper-at the time when she caught fire. She also stated that Dinesh and her mother-in-law were with her at that time. She could not tell who had sprinkled oil on her. She also stated that her husband had married for the third time and had turned out the previous two wives from his house. Chainchal succumbed to her injuries at about 4.10 P.M. on the same day. Dr. D.D. Sharma performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chainchal on May 2, 1930, at about 9.30 A.M. and observed that the cause of death was shock due to multiple extensive burns. The burns were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between the burn injuries and death was about 6 hours and between the death and the post-mortem was 17 hours and 20 minutes.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the letters written by the deceased were admissible in evidence as they related to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. The Court also held that the two dying declarations made by the deceased were admissible in evidence and that they were sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Court further held that the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her brother was also admissible in evidence and that it corroborated the other two dying declarations. The Court also held that the evidence of the other witnesses, including the doctor who examined the deceased and the police officer who recorded her dying declaration, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the two appellants, Manohar Lal and Ram Rakhi, and upheld their convictions and sentences. However, the Court allowed the appeal of the third appellant, Dinesh, and set aside her conviction and sentence, giving her the benefit of doubt.

Issues: 1. Whether the letters written by the deceased were admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the two dying declarations made by the deceased were admissible in evidence. 3. Whether the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her brother was admissible in evidence. 4. Whether the evidence of the other witnesses was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The letters written by the deceased were admissible in evidence as they related to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. 2. The two dying declarations made by the deceased were admissible in evidence and were sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. 3. The oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her brother was also admissible in evidence and corroborated the other two dying declarations. 4. The evidence of the other witnesses, including the doctor who examined the deceased and the police officer who recorded her dying declaration, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.

Final Decision: The appeal of the two appellants, Manohar Lal and Ram Rakhi, was dismissed and their convictions and sentences were upheld. The appeal of the third appellant, Dinesh, was allowed and her conviction and sentence were set aside.