Surjit Singh vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3448

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, LALIT BATRA, JJ.
Surjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-D-515-DB of 2003
Decided On : 29-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Arun Kumar Bakshi, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel); For the Appellant
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment for setting wife on fire, resulting in death after 28 days due to septicemia - Post-mortem confirmed extensive burn injuries, with diesel residues on clothing establishing intent. (Paras 1, 5, 62)

(B) Dying Declaration - Statements recorded at two hospitals affirmed victim was conscious and fit to testify - Court upheld validity despite time lapse before death, emphasizing causal relationship between injuries and death. (Paras 44, 46, 64)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, who sustained 80% burns after being set on fire with diesel by him, leading to her eventual death. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
Conviction upheld, with the court dismissing claims regarding the validity of dying declarations, affirming sufficiency of evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 42, 66)

Issues: Did the statements of the deceased constitute valid dying declarations? Did the injuries directly cause the death despite septicemia? (Paras 40, 61)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that dying declarations made by the deceased are admissible as evidence, pivotal in establishing the appellant’s guilt, irrespective of time taken for death post-injury. (Paras 42, 65)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of the incident leading to the charge. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. defendant's statements and circumstances of arrest. (Para 5 , 6 , 39)
3. medical evaluations and assessments on cause of death. (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
4. prosecution's argument on intent and evidence. (Para 40 , 41 , 58)
5. legal standards for dying declarations. (Para 45 , 49 , 66)
6. final verdict on appeal. (Para 67)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21/23.12.2002 passed by the Session Judge, Karnal in Sessions Case No.17 of 2002 whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC has been convicted for the same and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 3.1.2002, ASI Jagan Nath (PW14) while posted as Incharge Police Post Nilokheri received a rukka Ex.PA/1 from Dr. Ravinder Kaur, CHC Nilokheri regarding admission of Manpreet Kaur with 80 percent burns. On receipt of the rukka ASI Jagan Nath accompanied by other police officials went to CHC, Nilokheri at about 9.30 pm and moved an application Ex.PB before Dr. Ravinder Kaur to ascertain whether Manpreet Kaur was fit to make a statement. Dr. Ravinder Kaur gave her opinion Ex.PB/1 to the effect that the patient was fit to make a statement. ASI Jagan Nath recorded the statement of Manpreet Kaur (Ex.PC). She stated that she was married with accused Surjit Singh about 8 years back. 4 children were born to them. Her husband Surjit Singh (appellant) used to drink and take intoxicating pills. Whenever she demanded money for household expenses he used to beat her. On 1.1.2002 at about 8.30 am, she was easing herself in the latrine. The latrine did not have a door. Only a piece of cloth was serving the purpose of the door. While she was sitting inside the latrine, her husband poured diesel on her and set her on fire by using a match stick. She at once got up and came into the courtyard of the house. She raised alarm. Members of the family took her inside the room and covered her with a blanket and extinguished the fire. They threatened her that she should tell everybody that she had got burnt on account of electric current. The accused- Surjit Singh then telephoned her sister and brother-in-law at Delhi informing them that she (Manpreet Kaur) had caught fire. On receiving the information, her sister and brother-in-law came from Delhi to enquire about her condition. She then narrated the entire occurrence to them. Her sister and brother-in-law took her to Civil Hospital, Nilokheri. Before that her husband was getting her treated from a private doctor.

3. After recording the statement ASI Jagan Nath read over its contents to her and she affixed her right thumb impression. Dr. Ravinder Kaur remained present throughout the period when her statement was recorded by ASI Jagan Nath. Dr. Ravinder Kaur also attested the statement at point Ex.PC/1. Manpreet Kaur remained conscious and mentally alert throughout the period her statement was being recorded. ASI Jagan Nath then made his endorsement (Ex.PC/3) on the statement and sent it to Police Station Butana and formal FIR (Ex.PC/2) was registered. The investigation of case was taken up by ASI Jagan Nath who recorded the statements of Meena (sister) and Kuldeep Singh (brother-in-law ) of Manpreet Kaur who were present at CHC Nilokheri.

4. From CHC Nilokheri Manpreet Kaur was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 4.1.2002. On receiving opinion of the doctor regarding her fitness, her statement (Ex. PQ/2) was recorded on 4.1.2002. In this statement she reiterated the sequence of events as in her previous statement. She died on 28.1.2002 while under treatment at Safdarjung Hospital. Her postmortem examination was conducted. Offence was converted to Section 302 IPC. After completio