JUDGEMENT

Per Oswal-J

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2005 passed by the Court of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in File No. 59/Sessions titled State versus Bir Singh & Ors.= by virtue of which the learned trial court has convicted the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 302/498-A/149 RPC and have been sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- each, for commission of offence under section 302/149RPC and imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for commission of offences under Sections 498-A/149 RPC.

2. The appellants have impugned the judgment dated 14.02.2005 primarily on the ground that the dying declaration made by the deceased before the Police was shrouded with mystery and was doubtful and further that there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, those have been ignored by the learned trial court. It is also stated that none of the witnesses deposed anything about the appellant No. 2 (husband of the deceased), who had suffered 20% burns while saving his wife i.e. the deceased, but the learned trial court has not considered this vital aspect of the case. In nutshell, the contention of the appellants is that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence.

Contentions of Appellants:

3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel along with Mr. S. K. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased-Sita Devi was manipulated by the Police in connivance with the parents and brothers of the deceased and in fact, the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to make any dying declaration, as she had suffered 100% burns. They further argued that even there is no evidence with regard to the fact that the deceased was treated with cruelty and further there are material contradictions between the statements of the mother, brothers and sister-in-law of the deceased, but the learned trial court has not appreciated the same. It was also urged that no independent witness has been associated by the Investigating Officer to show that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the appellants and only interested and related witnesses have been associated with the investigation and they only have deposed against the appellants. Mr. Sethi submitted that the appellant No. 1, Bir Singh has already passed away. Mr. S. K. Anand has produced the medical certificate of appellant No. 3 (mother-in-law) to demonstrate that she is suffering from old age ailments.

Contentions of respondent

4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded after the Medical Officer found the deceased to be in a fit condition to make a statement and further that the dying declaration has been attested by the Doctor. He strenuously argued that the deceased was killed only after 4/5 months of her marriage and there was sufficient evidence before the learned trial court for convicting the appellants. He also urged that the contention of the appellant No. 2 that he suffered 20% burns while saving his wife is mis-conceived, as he could have stopped his mother and sisters from burning the deceased and further that after the deceased was burnt, he did not take his inured wife straightway to Hospital but to the residence of her parents, which reflects that the appellant No.2 was no less guilty than other appellants. Mr. Gupta has produced the death certificate of appellant No. 1, Bir Singh, which shows that the appellant No. 1 expired on 10.01.2022.

5. Heard and perused the record.

Case of Prosecution:

6. The prosecution story as it emerges from the charge-sheet is that the statement of the deceased-Sita Devi was recorded by ASI-Babu Ram along with Head Constable-Gushu Ram and was produced in the Police Station on 16.06.1998. The deceased had stated that she got married with Balwinder Singh