Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Devendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2601 of 2016
Decided on : 10-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vatsala, Pankaj Srivastava, S.S. Rajput, Shri Krishan Yadav

The admissibility and reliability of dying declaration, burden of proof under Section 106 Evidence Act, and the principles of proper sentencing based on proportionality and reformative theory of punishment.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 304 IPC - Mukesh Bhai Gopal Bhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat, 2010 AIR SCW 5614; Pradeep Bisoi Vs. State of Odisha,(2019)11 SCC500 - Statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC as dying declaration - Section 106 Evidence Act - Shambu Nath Mehra vs. State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404 - Proper Sentence in sentencing - Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, [AIR 1977 SC 1926]; Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP [(2004) 7 SCC 257]; Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 304 IPC for setting his wife ablaze, resulting in her death. The appellant claimed false implication and alibi. The prosecution relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, supported by witnesses and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty based on the dying declaration, witness testimonies, and medical evidence. The court also considered the appellant's failure to prove his alibi and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Issues: False implication, alibi, admissibility of dying declaration, burden of proof under Section 106 Evidence Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the dying declaration as admissible evidence, considered the burden of proof under Section 106 Evidence Act, and emphasized the importance of proper sentencing based on the principles of proportionality and reformative theory of punishment.
Final Decision: The appellant's sentence of life imprisonment under Section 304 IPC was converted to the sentence already undergone, with a reduced fine. The appeal was partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1, Hathras in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2014 (Case Crime No. 134 of 2013), P.S. Hasayan, District Hathras convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 304 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-with stipulation of default clause.

2. Brief facts, as culled out from the record, are that a First Information Report was lodged by the informant, Yogesh Kumar son of Rohan Singh, resident of village Pakshi Bihar, Police Station Jalesar, Etah, at Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras with the averments that marriage of her sister, Vimlesh, was solemnized with Devendra Ram son of Tikam Singh, resident of Buzurg about 12 years back. Two children were born out from their wedlock. On 10.4.2013 at about 4.00 p.m. Devendra poured kerosene upon the sister of informant and set her ablaze due to which she received burn injuries. Devendra had brought the victim to Aligarh for treatment but he fled from hospital leaving the victim there. Informant brought the victim from the hospital to the police station in an injured condition to lodge the F.I.R..

3. On the basis of the written report (Ext. ka-1), chik First Information Report (Ext. Ka-11) was registered at Police Station concerned on 11.4.2013 at 11.35 p.m. against the applicant Devendra.

4. Matter was investigated by Sub-Inspector Jiya Lal. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and the victim/deceased, prepared site plan, inquest report was also prepared and post mortem was performed. After making thorough investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellant. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused and committed the case to Court of Sessions, as prima facie charge was for the sessions triable offence.

5. The charge framed was under Section 304 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. Trial started and in support of its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses, who are as follows:

1	Yogesh Kumar	PW-1 informant (brother of the deceased)
2	S.I. Mohd. Aslam	PW-2 (performed the inquest and prepared other papers)
3	Dr. R.P. Singh	PW-3 (prepared injury report of the victim)
4	Radhapyari	PW-4
5	Rohan Singh	PW-5
6	S.I. Jiya Lal	PW-6 (Investigating Officer)
7	Dr. Iqrar Ahmad	PW-7 (performed the post mortem of the deceased)

6. In support of oral version, following documents were filed and proved on behalf of the prosecution:

1	Written report	Ext. A-1
2	Inquest Report	Ext. A-2
3	Challan Nash	Ext. A-3
4	Letter to R.I.	Ext. A-4
5	Letter to C.M.O.	Ext. A-5
6	Photo Nash	Ext. A-6
7	Injury report	Ext. A-7
8	Site Plan	Ext. A-8
9	Copy of case diary	Ext. A-9
10	Charge sheet	Ext A-10
11	Chik F.I.R.	Ext. A-11
12	Copy G.D.	Ext. A-12
13	Post mortem report	Ext. A-13

7. Deceased was hospitalised after the occurrence by her husband. She died after 7 days of the occurrence during the course of treatment.

8. After conclusion of evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he pleaded his false implication and claimed alibi. In support of its case defence has examined Ranvir Singh as DW-1.

9. Heard Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Deceased was the wife of the appellant. It is further argued that on the basis of analysis of prosecution evidence, no guilt against the accused appe