Ranbir Singh vs State
2007 Latest Caselaw 430 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Criminal Appeal 521 of 1999 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 30.08.1999 and order dated 31.08.1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 16/1998 arising out of F.I.R. No. 577/1997, Police Station, Jahangir Puri, whereby the learned Judge vide his judgment has held the appellant guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC and further by a separate order has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/- (five hundred) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, Jaishree.

2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are that on 30.10.1997, the Investigating Officer in presence of Doctor recorded the statement of deceased, Jaishree @ Jaya, on the basis of which statement, F.I.R., Exhibit PW-3/C was registered. In the dying declaration, Exhibit PW-3/A, Jaishree stated that her husband, Ranbir who has been residing with her at House No. E-834, Jahangir Puri as tenant for nearly two to two-and-a-half months demanded money for buying liquor. On Jaishree's refusal to give money, Ranbir poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. Thereafter he escaped from the house. According to Jaishree, the incident took place at 9.00 a.m. In her statement she states that she is in her sense and has made a statement without any pressure. Shortly thereafter Jaishree succumbed to her injuries. The investigative machinery was put into motion and upon completion of the investigation challan was filed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

3. The Prosecution in order to establish the case examined as many as 19 witnesses. Of these, PW-1, Anil Sharma, is the photographer, while PW-2 is Asha, who identifies the dead body of her deceased daughter, Jaishree. PW- 3, ASI Har Prasad, is the Investigating Officer who recorded the statement of the injured and proceeded to investigate the case. PW-4 is Sunil Kumar who is the landlord. He came to the place of incident after hearing commotion of a quarrel taking place in the house of the deceased. The witness deposes to the effect that on 30.10.1997, he heard quarrel between the accused and his wife and saw the accused, Ranbir pouring kerosene oil on his wife Jaishree and setting her ablaze. He tried to apprehend the accused who managed to escape. When he came back to the spot he along with other persons in the gali doused the flames. Somebody informed the Police. The Police came and took the deceased to the hospital. He remained with the Police after the incident. The same day, at 8.00 p.m., the accused was seen near the market and on this witness's information the accused was arrested. In cross-examination it was sought to be elicited from this witness that at the relevant time, accused was not present in the house and that the deceased had bolted the door from inside and set herself ablaze.

4. PW-8, Dr.Akash Jhanjee, conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Jaishree on 01.11.1997. He noticed that both eyes were closed and cornea hazy. All natural orifices normal. Wint ointment was present over burnt areas at places. Rigor motis was present in both upper limbs and lower limbs. Postmortem staining could not be accessed due to presence of burns. No signs of decomposition present. Probable time since death around six hours. It was identified body and according to IO the deceased was burnt by her husband on 30.10.1997 at around 9.00 a.m. when he demanded money for liquor from the deceased. She was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital Casualty and admitted on 30.10.1997 at 10.10 a.m. she expired on 1.11.1997 at 6.20 am after giving her statement to police in front of Doctor clearly stating that she was burnt by her husband Ranbir Singh. In cross-examination the witness states that he is not in a position to say whether the patient would have been able to speak while having 92 per cent injuries.

5. PW-18, Dr.Sudhir from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences states that on 13.10.1997, he medically examined Jaishree who was brought to the hospital by CATS. On examination he found that the patient was conscious and oriented, pulse were bilaterally normal. Smell of kerosene was present. Scalp hair was singed (burnt). Approximately, 100 per cent total body surface area was burnt. In his opinion it was a case of thermal burns due to flames. The witness states that the patient gave him the history that she was burnt by her husband, Ranbir by dousing her with kerosene. He prepared the MLC which is Exhibit PW-18/A. It bears his signatures. In cross-examination the witness states that he examined the patient at 10.00 a.m. One Constable accompanied the patient and his name has been mentioned in the MLC as Jagdish. The patient was crying in pain when she was brought to the hospital. No medicine was administered to the patient before he medically examined her. No injection of Marfia or Pathpeth IDNE was given to the patient. The patient was in pain but she could speak and answer questions put to her by him. There were other Doctors present but they also did not put any questions nor signed the MLC. The patient was finding it difficult to reply to the questions and could not speak easily but this witness was able to comprehend whatever she spoke in Hindi. She was fully conscious at that time. Within ten minutes of her examination the patient was sent to Burns Ward. He admits that the MLC is in his handwriting. He denies that the history stated in the MLC was given by the Constable and not by the patient herself.

6. PW-19, Doctor Sameek Bhattacharya states that he declared Jaishree fit for statement on 30.10.1997 at 11.50 a.m. His opinion is at Point - E on the MLC. No written application was moved to obtain his opinion. He gave his opinion on the MLC produced before him. He did not give any separate Certificate and the information was based on clinical information given by the doctor concerned. He does not remember if the patient was crying. The witness gave phenargon and fortwin injection to the patient. These injections are pain-killers. The time taken by the drug to take effect varies from patient to patient. The Investigating Officer did not record his statement. He further states that the statement Exhibit PW-3/A might have been recorded by the Police officer in any event. This witness did not record the same although he affixed his signatures to the recorded statement of the patient.

7. In a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused states that he has not committed any offence. He is innocent and at the relevant time the incident was at the house of his mother-in-law at D-179, Jahangir Puri and somebody informed him about the incident. He was along with his mother-in-law and one Sunil rushed to the spot immediately and tried to break open the jungla and then entered the house and opened the door and tried to extinguish the flames. The Police came there and his wife was taken to the hospital. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. According to him she herself committed suicide.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no reliance can be placed on the dying declaration since the Certificate given by the Doctor was on the basis of the earlier opinion and not on his own opinion on the condition of the patient. He also contends that the patient was under sedative and could not have made an accurate statement. He also contends that the nature of burns made it impossible for the patient to have given any statement to the Police. Counsel also submits that the Doctor who has signed the statement does not claim that the statement was recorded in his presence or that he heard what was written in it. He has only affixed his signatures to a statement prepared by the Police without verifying its contents. In these circumstances, counsel claims that it would not be appropriate to place reliance on the same. He further contends that PW-4, Sunil, the landlord, cannot be relied upon as a truthful witness since his conduct is most unnatural and that if he had extinguished the flames then surely, there would have been some tell tail marks which were not noticed by the Police. He has placed reliance on a few judgments in support of his contention that the dying declaration ought not to be relied upon, viz. Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab 2003 (1) JCC 110; State of Orissa v. Parasuram Naik 1997 VII AD S.C.64; Raj Bahadur v. State 1991 JCC 550; Kanhai Mishra @ Kanhaiya Misra v. State of Bihar 2001 [2] JCC [SC] 5; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu 1994 (3) C.C. Cases 6 (SC); Bhira @ Raghbir v. The State of Haryana 1989 C.C. Cases 28 (HC).

9. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case as also the judgments relied upon by them. The question of law enunciated by the Supreme Court can hardly be a question of debate but each case is based on its own facts and principles of law required to be applied to peculiar facts. In the present case, we find that the so- called dying declaration made by Jaishree to the Investigating Officer is not free from doubt. We agree with the contention of learned Counsel that the Certificate affixed by the Doctor and the basis upon which the patient has been certified to be fit leaves much to be desired. Further the Doctor himself has not heard the deceased make her statement to the Police, yet the Doctor seems to have affixed his signatures to a pre-recorded document. We, therefore, propose not to rely upon the dying declaration, Exhibit PW-3/A, although the same has been relied upon by the Trial Court. However, dehors the so-called dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer, we have PW-18/A, which is the MLC recorded by Doctor Sudhir of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The MLC clearly reflects that the patient has given the history as being burnt by her husband, Ranbir by dousing her with kerosene. The Doctor who recorded this MLC, PW-18, Doctor Sudhir, has been categoric about the condition of the patient at the time the history of the incident was recorded and even in cross-examination the Prosecution's case has only been reaffirmed. Coupled with this is the statement of PW-4, Sunil Kumar, who has seen the incident. He heard a quarrel and saw the accused pour kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze. The criticism that the witness should have first doused the flame before chasing the accused is hardly sustainable since the reaction of the witness cannot be said to be something which is not possible. The witness ran for a short distance before returning to the scene and helping others to douse the flames. This does not appear to be unnatural.

10. We have carefully examined the judgment under challenge and have gone through its reasoning. We find that the learned Judge has given adequate and cogent reasons for holding that the Prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. Having ourselves examined the record, we find the judgment of the Trial Court cannot really be faulted with. In that view of the matter we uphold the judgment dated 30.08.1999 and order dated 31.08.1999. Criminal Appeal 521 of 1999 is dismissed.