Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Pritinker Diwaker, Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, JJ.
Surendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.5525 of 2015
Decided On : 02-11-2018
For the Appellant : S/Shri. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Ramanuj and Sharique Ahmad
For the Respondent:Shri. Amit Sinha, Addl. Govt. Advocate.
Headnote:
The court acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to inconsistencies in the dying declarations, lack of corroborating evidence, and reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Rubi, suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial home on April 27, 2013, and succumbed to her injuries on May 4, 2013. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Surendra Singh, the husband of the deceased, along with other family members, poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. The accused denied the allegations and claimed that the deceased accidentally caught fire while cooking.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were inconsistencies in the two dying declarations made by the deceased. In the first dying declaration, she implicated the accused and other family members, while in the second dying declaration, she only implicated the accused. The court also noted that there was no smell of kerosene oil on the deceased's body or clothes, which raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
Issues: 1. Reliability and consistency of the dying declarations 2. Corroborating evidence to support the dying declarations 3. Reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dying declarations were not reliable and trustworthy due to the inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence. The court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 302 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 302 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Pritinker Diwaker, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Mahoba in S.T. No.111 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.481 of 2013, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- in default thereof to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Rubi, wife of the accused appellant. Their marriage was solemnized on 25.04.2012 and she suffered burn injury in her matrimonial house on 27.04.2013. Immediately after the incident, Rubi was taken to the hospital where she was medically examined vide Ex. Ka-2 and 70% burn injuries have been noticed by the doctor examining her. On 27.04.2013 itself, dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by PW-7 Ompal Singh, the Executive Magistrate. Considering her critical condition, from Mahoba she was taken to Jhansi on 27.04.2013 itself where she was hospitalized in Medical College, Jhansi. On 28.04.2013, she was taken to Gwalior in a private hospital where she remained till 04.05.2013 where she succumbed to her burn injuries. At Gwalior, yet another dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by PW-11 Umesh Chandra, Executive Magistrate vide Ex. Ka-12. On 11.05.2013, a written report Ex. Ka1 was made by PW-1, Indrapal Singh, father of the deceased, alleging that since the date of marriage, there was demand of dowry on the part of the accused persons and that she was subjected to cruelty. He further alleged that the deceased has been burnt by the accused persons. Based on this report, FIR Ex.Ka3 was registered against as many as five accused persons, namely, Surendra Singh, present appellant, Pushpendra, brother-in-law (Dewar) of the deceased, Brijendra @ Shivpal, uncle-in-law of the deceased, Ramrati, mother-in-law of the deceased and Sangeeta, married nanad of the deceased, under Sections 498-A/304-B of I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the meanwhile, on 15.05.2013 inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.Ka13 and the dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by PW-10 Dr. Nikhil Agrawal vide Ex. Ka11. The autopsy surgeon has noticed 80% burn injuries on the body of the deceased and according to him, the cause of death is due to cardiac respiratory failure.
3. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charges against all the accused persons under Sections 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and alternate charge under Section 302/34 of IPC.
4. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Indrapal Singh, PW-2 Smt. Sunita, PW-3 Vanshgopal Yadav, PW-4 Dr. R.B. Arya, PW-5 Constable Roop Singh, PW-6 Dr. Sudhir Kumar, PW-7 Ompal Singh, Executive Magistrate, PW-8 Dr. Keshav Rajpoot, PW-9 Sub Inspector Ramsharan Singh, PW-10 Dr. Nikhil Agrawal, PW-11 Tehsildar Umesh Chandra Kaurav, PW-12 Smt. Hardevi, Circle Officer and PW-13 Rajesh Kumar, Circle Officer, whereas two defence witnesses, namely, Pushpa and Sirawan Deen have been examined by the accused persons.
5. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication.
6. After hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment, the trial Judge has acquitted the other accused persons of all the offences. The appellant has also been acquitted under Section 498-A, 304-B of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, he has been convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.
7. Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Shri Ramanuj Yadav and Shri
