On 30th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh while hearing an appeal of an accused charged under Section 302 IPC reiterated the supreme court and held that the dying declaration of a person, by itself, may be sufficient to find the accused guilty and if the statement is reliable and credible, it does not even need corroboration.

In the present case the court took into the genuineness of the dying declaration of the deceased about her death and held that as her statement was also collaborated by other witnesses therefore it can be established that the accused was guilty of murder.

Facts of the case:

The present appeal by the convict/ accused No. 3 is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2017, and order on sentence dated 23.12.2017 passed by Sh. Vivek Kumar Gulia, ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka District Courts, Delhi in S.C. No.130/2015, arising out of FIR No.210/2012 registered at P.S. – Chhawla under Section 302/ 304B/ 498A/ 34/ 174A IPC against four accused, namely Rohtash, Santosh, Sumit @ Vicky and Jitender @ Tinku.

Contention of the Appellant:

The following contention has been submitted by the Appellant:

  1. It was submitted that PW-3 is not a reliable witness inasmuch, as, she not only roped in the appellant alleging that he poured kerosene on the deceased.
  2. Learned counsel submits that PW-3 was not consistent, and did not stand by her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She turned hostile and was cross examined by the learned APP.
  3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the court’s attention to the MLC of the deceased Ex.PW2/A, where the history given to the doctor was “burnt by stove as told by B/B”. It is argued that the history given contemporaneously was not of the deceased being burnt by anyone.
  4. Learned counsel submitted that the contradiction in the statement of  Shri SatiPrakash Chand raises a serious doubt about the correctness of the statement attributed to the deceased/ her dying declaration.

Contention of respondent:

Mr. Ashish Dutta, the learned APP has supported the impugned judgment and order on sentence on the following grounds:

1. Mr. Dutta submited that this statement of PW-3 was consistent with her testimony recorded before the Court. He submits that mere embellishments and exaggerations found in the statement of PW-3 do not shake the core of her testimony qua the role played by the appellant.

2. Mr. Dutta had stated that the deceased and PW-3 Nisha were being harassed for want of dowry.

3. Mr. Dutta submited that the defence witness produced by the defence were wholly irrelevant as she made contradictory statement.

4. Mr. Dutta submits that the dying declaration of the deceased is clear and there is no reason not to accept the same. He submits that the dying declaration is credible. The conviction of the accused can be founded upon the same itself, and it does not even require corroboration.

Observation and judgement of the court:

The following observation has been made by the court:

  1. In relation to the aspect of dowry demands and harassment for dowry, there was substantial evidence led by the prosecution before the Trial Court.
  2. The submission of Mr. Yadav that PW-3 was not a reliable and credible witness also has no force.
  3. In the present case, the dying declaration of the deceased Rakhi Ex. PW-12/C is very clear. The statement of the deceased Ex. PW-12/C on the aspect of the manner and cause of her death inspires the confidence of its voluntariness, truthfulness and correctness, and is also sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 and the other evidence brought on record, namely, the medical evidence which shows that the deceased suffered burns by kerosene and all other exhibits were found to contain kerosene.

 In the light of the above, the court held that the Trial Court has correctly arrived at the finding of the appellant‟s guilt in the commission of the offence under Section 300 IPC and he has been correctly convicted under Section 302 IPC.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Anusree