Kamaljit Singh vs State (Delhi Admin)
2009 Latest Caselaw 3960 Del

          THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Judgment delivered on: 25.09.2009

+      CRL. A. 193/1993

KAMALJIT SINGH                                         ...   Appellant

                                - Versus -

STATE (DELHI ADMIN)                                    ...   Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Appellant        : Mr Anupam Sharma
For the Respondent       : Mr M.N. Dudeja

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed Yes to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

1. By virtue of the judgment dated 20.10.1993, delivered by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case 67/1983 arising out

of FIR No.355/1983 registered at police station Kingsway Camp under

Section 302/109 IPC, the appellant has been found guilty for the

offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, for having committed the

murder of his wife Inderjit Kaur by setting her on fire after pouring

kerosene oil on her. By a separate order on sentence passed on the

same day, i.e., on 20.10.1993, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and also imposed a

fine of Rs 2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In

default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the impugned

judgment and order on sentence, both dated 20.10.1993, the appellant

has filed the present appeal. At this juncture itself, it ought to be

pointed out that initially, alongwith the appellant Kamaljit Singh, his

mother Balbir Kaur was also charged of having committed an offence

punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Both of them pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial. However, during the pendency of trial, Balbir Kaur

passed away and the proceedings abated insofar as she was concerned.

The trial continued in respect of the appellant Kamaljit Singh and

ultimately resulted in his conviction, as indicated above.

2. The prosecution case is that the appellant Kamaljit Singh and the

deceased Inderjit Kaur got married in 1975. Thereafter, the appellant

started maltreating and harassing Inderjit Kaur and started making cash

demands from her. The demands were being made from time to time

for various articles, such as a fridge, television and cash amounting to

Rs 5,000/-. Since Inderjit Kaur was unable to meet the demands, she

was allegedly beaten and harassed from time to time. She even wrote

letters to this effect, to her parents. These letters were addressed to her

father being Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5. On 12.05.1983, between 9.00

to 9.30 p.m. approximately, the appellant is said to have had a quarrel

with his wife Inderjit Kaur, in his house bearing No.E-279, Otram

Lines, Delhi. Thereafter, the appellant Kamaljit Singh is said to have

beaten her and dragged her by her hair from the kitchen to the

bathroom, where he poured kerosene oil over her and set her ablaze.

While this was happening, Kamaljit Singh‟s mother Balbir Kaur is said

to have been present in the house, as also are two other boys, who were

working with Kamaljit Singh. Kamaljit Singh, it is alleged, after

setting his wife Inderjit Kaur on fire, ran away from the back door of

the house. Kamaljit Singh‟s mother Balbir Kaur and the two other

boys, who were present there, poured water over Inderjit Kaur.

Thereafter, a taxi was called by persons who had gathered there and the

injured Inderjit Kaur was taken to LNJPN Hospital by PW-10 (Baldev

Singh). Inderjit Kaur is said to have told PW-10 (Baldev Singh) that

her husband, Kamaljit Singh, dragged her by her hair from the kitchen

to the bathroom, poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire.

3. The MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A) indicates that the injured Inderjit

Kaur was brought to the hospital on 12.05.1983 at 10.30 p.m. by

Baldev Singh. The said MLC records the alleged history of the injured

as "being burnt by husband after pouring kerosene oil". It also records

that the history was given by the patient herself, who was conscious at

that time. The MLC also indicates that the injured Inderjit Kaur was

directed to be admitted in the burns ward for detailed examination and

further management. As per Exhibit-PW-19/D, which is part of the

case-sheet of the burns ward (Exhibit-PX-1), the statement given by the

patient is as under:-

"According to the patient--her husband had a quarrel with her & beat her. Then he dragged her to the bathroom, sprinkled kerosene oil on her body & set her on fire. His mother also helped him in the above procedure."

4. After admission in the burns ward, PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar

Goel) is said to have certified the patient as „fit to give a statement‟.

The endorsement to this effect is Exhibit-PW-19/A on the MLC

(Exhibit-PW-7/A). The said endorsement was made on 12.05.1983 at

11.40 p.m. Thereafter, the injured Inderjit Kaur is said to have given

her dying declaration (Exhibit-PW-17/A). The said dying declaration

was recorded in Hindi, the English translation of which reads as under:-

"Smt. Inderjit Kaur W/o Kanwaljeet Singh aged 25 years resident of E-289 Otram Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi- 110009, made the following statement:-

I alongwith my family reside at the aforesaid address. Quarrel often takes place between me and my husband. He beats and asked me that I should not go to my parents house. I should bring dowry. Today also, at 9.30 P.M., a quarrel took place between him and myself and during this course, he gave me a slap on my eye. Thereafter he holding my hair dragged me out of the kitchen and took into the bathroom, poured kerosene oil over me and thereafter set me on fire with the help of a match stick. When he set me on fire, my mother in law was in the house. Two boys namely Sheetal and Suresh who work with my husband, were also present at that time.

I do not know what happened thereafter.

I have heard the statement and the same is correct.

        Statement given in my         R.T.I. of            Ram Kishan
        presence                  Smt. Inderjit Kaur     SHO/Kingsway
             Sd/-                                               Camp,
       Dr. V.K. Goel                  Attested               12.5.1983
       12.5.1983                  Gurbachan Singh
                                Sub-Insp., Police Post
                                  Kingsway Camp"

5. The death summary prepared at the burns ward is Exhibit-PW-

19/C. It indicates that the date and time of admission of Inderjit Kaur,

aged about 25 years, in the burns ward, was 12.05.1983 at 11.10 p.m.

and the date and time of her death was 13.05.1983 at 4.15 a.m. The

death summary indicates that the general condition of the patient was

grave. Her pulse rate was 108/minute, regular and her rate of

respiration was 24 / minute, regular. She was severely dehydrated. IV

fluids had been started and pathedine had also been administered. This

was done on 12.05.1983. At about 3.30 a.m. on 13.05.1983, the patient

started gasping and in spite of all resuscitation measures, she expired at

4.15 a.m. The post mortem examination on the body of Inderjit Kaur

was conducted at 12.15 p.m. on the same day, i.e., 13.05.1983. The

post mortem report is Exhibit-PW-8/A and the same was prepared by

PW-8 (Dr B.N. Reddy, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic

Medcine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi). He found the

following injuries to be present on the body:-

"1. Burns involving epidermis was present all over face, all around neck, all over upper limbs including palms, all around chest except both breast region, all around abdomen

except both iliac fosse, both lower limb except soles. The cuticular layer peeled off in patches, floor and margins of the burns were redish. Unpeeled areas of burns blackish, burns were evenly distributed, approximate area of burns was 85 to 90%. All the burns were antemortem. Scalp hair were burnt only a tips on sides. No smell of kerosene oil in the scalp hair. Burns were not present in the lower front of both iliac fosse growing, pubic region buttocks and breast.

2. Cut open drip wound of 2cm was present in the lower inner part of right leg.

3. Cut open drip wound of 4cm was present in right femoral region.

There were no other injuries on the body. Injury No.2 and 3 are surgical."

In the opinion of PW-8 (Dr B.N. Reddy), death was due to shock as a

result of extensive burns by fire. All the burns were ante mortem and

were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

6. As many as 23 prosecution witnesses were examined by the

prosecution in support of its case. The defence also examined two

witnesses, both of whom were the daughters of the appellant Kamaljit

Singh and the deceased Inderjit Kaur.

7. The trial court, after examining the evidence, observed that the

prosecution case mainly revolved around the dying declaration

(Exhibit-PW-17/A) which, according to the trial court, has been amply

corroborated by the other witnesses. The trial court was of the view

that the prosecution version, that the deceased Inderjit Kaur was

subjected to harassment and maltreatment stood established. It also

came to the conclusion that she was also beaten on several occasions

prior to the incident of burning. The letters (Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5),

according to the trial court, also established the allegation of

maltreatment and torture on the part of the appellant. Thus, believing

the dying declaration (Exhibit-PW-17/A) to be the true and correct

statement of Inderjit Kaur before she died, the trial court found the

appellant to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the dying

declarations as not being truthful or correct. With regard to the oral

dying declaration said to have been made to PW-10 (Baldev Singh), the

learned counsel submitted that he was a false witness. Referring to his

testimony, the learned counsel submitted that this witness did not know

who had brought the taxi in which he took the injured Inderjit Kaur to

the hospital. He submitted that this contradicted the prosecution case

that the taxi belonged to PW-10 (Baldev Singh). He further submitted

that PW-10 (Baldev Singh) is not a chance witness and that he was a

relative of Inderjit Kaur and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his

testimony, as he was an interested party.

9. With regard to the second dying declaration, which had been

recorded by PW-7 (Dr Deepak Mittal) at LNJPN Hospital on the MLC

(Exhibit PW-7/A) itself, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that this also was not a dying declaration made by Inderjit Kaur,

although the MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A) says so. He submitted that

Inderjit Kaur was brought to the hospital by PW-10 (Baldev Singh) and

that in all likelihood, this was the statement given by PW-10 (Baldev

Singh). Moreover, he submitted that the MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A)

records that the patient was conscious, but in his cross-examination,

PW-7 (Dr Deepak Mittal) has indicated what he means by a patient

being „conscious‟. According to him, whether a patient is conscious or

unconscious is ascertained by giving a prick on the foot of the patient.

If he responds, then the patient is said to be conscious. According to

the learned counsel for the appellant, such kind of consciousness is not

sufficient to lead to the conclusion whether the patient was well-

oriented and was able to speak or not ? Unless and until there is

certainty with regard to that, merely writing that „the patient was

conscious‟ does not mean anything. Consequently, he submitted that

there was grave doubt as to whether the alleged dying declaration, said

to have been made by Inderjit Kaur to PW-7 (Dr Deepak Mittal), as

recorded in the MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A), had, in fact, been made by

Inderjit Kaur.

10. With regard to the dying declaration (Exhibit-PW-17/A), which is

said to have been recorded in the burns ward immediately after 11.40

p.m. on 12.05.1983, but prior to 12.05 a.m. on 13.05.1983 (i.e. the time

at which the rukka was dispatched), the learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that no sanctity can be attached to the same. To

demonstrate this, he submitted that the scribe of this statement is

unknown. It is not known as to who recorded this dying declaration.

The testimony of PW-17 (Ram Kishan, SHO of police station

Kingsway Camp), who was also the investigating officer in this case, is

ambivalent. In his examination-in-chief, PW-17 (Ram Kishan) initially

says that it is he who recorded the statement and shortly thereafter he

stated that he did not record the statement. In his cross-examination, he

stated that he did not remember who recorded the statement of Inderjit

Kaur. He also confirmed that it is not signed by the scribe and that

apart from Inderjit Kaur and the two men, being PW-19 (Dr Vinod

Kumar Goel) and himself [PW-17 (Ram Kishan)], nobody else was

present at the time the statement was recorded. The learned counsel

submitted that if that was the position, then it is either Dr Vinod Kumar

Goel or Ram Kishan, who was the scribe of the dying declaration

(Exhibit-PW-17/A). Ram Kishan (PW-17) has stated that he was not

the scribe. PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar Goel) stated that the dying

declaration (Exhibit-PW-17/A) was recorded in his presence by PW-17

(Ram Kishan) but, as noted above, PW-17 (Ram Kishan) denied that he

recorded the statement. It is on the basis of these contradictory

statements made by PW-17 (Ram Kishan) and PW-19 (Dr Vinod

Kumar Goel) that the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

no sanctity can be placed on Exhibit-PW-17/A because it is not known

as to who scribed it. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the

appellant also submitted that the attesting witness SI Gurbachan Singh,

who had earlier been cited as a prosecution witness, had been dropped

and not produced before court.

11. Another argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant

with regard to Exhibit-PW-17/A not being a true and correct statement

of Inderjit Kaur, was that the condition of the patient was admittedly

grave. She had suffered more than 90% burns and the medical

evidence suggested that she was not in a condition to make any

statement. The patient died within five hours and her condition

remained grave throughout, as indicated by the death summary.

Moreover, pathedine was administered intravenously to the patient.

Pathedine has the properties of an analgesic, but at the same time, it is a

sedative and / or causes euphoria. Thus, according to the learned

counsel for the appellant, the medical evidence and the record of the

treatment given to the injured Inderjit Kaur, clearly indicates that she

could not have been in a fit condition to give a statement.

Consequently, Exhibit-PW-17/A cannot be relied upon for basing a

conviction.

12. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant also

placed reliance on the testimony of PW-8 (Dr B.N. Reddy), who had

conducted the post mortem examination, wherein he stated that Inderjit

Kaur suffered neurogenic shock. Referring to the book „Medical

Jurisprudence and Toxicology‟ by Dr K.S. Narayn Reddy, pages 353 &

354 and Godman & Gilman‟s, „The Pharmacological basis of

Therapeutics, Ninth Edition‟, the learned counsel submitted that

neurogenic shock meant immediate shock of a kind from which the

patient does not recover. Referring to the latter text, the learned

counsel submitted that pathedine was like morphine and it causes not

just an analgesic and sedative effect, but also causes euphoria. The

learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision in the case of

Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat: 1982 Cri. L.J. 1972, to

indicate that there can be no presumption that a doctor is always a

witness of truth.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although

PW-4 (Suresh Kumar) has been declared a hostile witness, his

testimony cannot be discarded in toto. This witness had clearly stated

that the appellant Kamaljit Singh had left the house before the burning

incident and that the bathroom was bolted from inside. These

circumstances suggest that since the appellant was not present when

Inderjit Kaur suffered the burns and that as the bathroom was locked

from inside, it was more likely to be a case of suicide. He also

submitted that the prosecution case was that prior to the burning

incident, the appellant Kamaljit Singh had beaten Inderjit Kaur. But,

according to him, this is belied by the fact that the post mortem

examination did not indicate any external injuries.

14. He also submitted that the defence witness DW-1 (Kumari

Satvinder Kaur) and DW-2 (Kumari Gurpreet Kaur), both of whom

were present in the house when the incident of burning took place, have

clearly stated that their father, Kamaljit Singh, was not responsible for

the death of their mother, Inderjit Kaur. He submitted that due

credence should be given to defence witnesses and their testimonies

cannot be discarded just because they have come in support of the

defence case. He further submitted that their testimonies corroborated

the evidence given by PW-4 (Suresh Kumar).

15. With regard to the letters (Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5), which are

said to have been written by Inderjit Kaur and addressed to her father

PW-6 (Khajan Singh), the learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the credibility of these letters is doubtful. He submitted that the

distance between the appellant Kamaljit Singh‟s house and that of PW-

6 (Khajan Singh‟s) house was only about 500-700 yards.

Consequently, he raised the question as to what was the need for

Inderjit Kaur to write letters when they were residing close by?

Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-6

(Khajan Singh) has stated that none of his daughters, including the

deceased Inderjit Kaur knew Gurmukhi. He also stated that he cannot

read what is written in the letters (Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5). He also

stated that he too did not know Gurmukhi and only knew Urdu. On the

basis of these statements, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that it was unlikely that Inderjit Kaur would have written the

letters (Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5).

16. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the letters (Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5) were fabricated.

The scribe of the dying declaration (Exhibit-PW-17/A) was not known.

There is serious doubt with regard to the fitness of Inderjit Kaur to have

made any statement prior to her death and after she received the burn

injuries. Inderjit Kaur suffered neurogenic shock, which is immediate

and there are no chances of recovery. As a result, dying declarations

allegedly made by Inderjit Kaur become very doubtful. He also

contended that the so-called admitted writing of Inderjit Kaur which

was compared by the handwriting expert PW-21 (Mr V.K. Khanna)

was not her admitted handwriting. Consequently, for all these reasons,

the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond

reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appeal ought to be allowed and the

appellant ought to be acquitted of all charges against him.

17. Mr M.N. Dudeja, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State, submitted that the dying declarations, both oral and written, were

consistent and a clear role has been assigned by Inderjit Kaur to her

husband, the appellant herein. The dying declaration (Exhibit-PW-

17/A) mentions the presence of Inderjit Kaur‟s mother-in-law and two

other boys, but does not ascribe any role to them. This indicates the

truthful nature of the dying declaration. He also submitted that it is a

short and concise dying declaration and the scope of tutoring is also

ruled out. Mr Dudeja submitted that although PW-4 (Suresh Kumar)

had been declared hostile, his testimony can be looked at for the

purposes of corroboration. From his testimony, it is apparent that the

appellant Kamaljit Singh was present on the scene. He further

submitted that the absence of the appellant Kamaljit Singh for 4 to 5

days is a relevant circumstance. Why was he absconding when his wife

had received burn injuries and had died within five hours thereof ? Mr

Dudeja submitted that PW-7 (Dr Deepak Mittal) also recorded the

dying declaration of Inderjit Kaur on the MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A). On

the very same MLC, Dr Vinod Kumar Goel of the Burns Ward,

declared her to be fit for giving a statement at 11.40 p.m. It is only

thereafter that the statement (Exhibit-PW-17/A) was recorded. He

submitted that even the hostile witness PW-4 (Suresh Kumar) stated

that a quarrel took place between the appellant Kamaljit Singh and his

wife Inderjit Kaur. He submitted that the motive behind the crime was

the demand for the sum of Rs 5,000/- in cash and other demands. As

those demands were not being met, the appellant set his wife Inderjit

Kaur on fire. PW-10 (Baldev Singh), according to Mr Dudeja, was a

genuine and truthful witness and his testimony fully corroborates the

dying declaration. He submitted that the defence witnesses DW-1 and

DW-2, who were only 6 years and 4 years old respectively at the time

of the incident, cannot be believed on account of their tender age and

on account of the fact that after the burning incident they were

throughout in the influence of the appellant and his family members

and the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out. For all these

reasons, Mr Dudeja submitted that the judgment and the order on

sentence ought to be confirmed and the appeal ought to be dismissed.

18. Let us consider, first of all, the issue with regard to the letters

(Exhibits-P-1, P-2 and P-5). The said letters (Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-

5) are in Devnagri script, but in the Punjabi language. The English

translations of the said letters read as under:-

"Translation of Ex. P-1, a letter dated 12.9.1982 written by Inderjeet Kaur to her parents.

Respected father and mother, Sat Shree Akal, everything is alright here and I pray to Shri Wahe Guru for your well being. The further news is that I

am very perturbed with constant quarrel. My mother-in- law had come and had tutored Kamaljeet, whereupon, he started beating and thrashing me. On Sunday, I having finished work, when had gone to take a bath in the bathroom, he pushed me and pressed by throat with the help of strangulated a wooden phatta (board) and turned me out of the bathroom. Thereafter he (my husband) left for somewhere with Rani. He did not return to the house even in the night. He often and on ask me to bring Rs.5000/- from my parents as he has to pay the same for television and machines. He do not allow me to speak to anyone. How long shall I continue to live in such circumstances.

Yours daughter sd/-/Q1 Inderjeet Kaur In English"

"Translation of Ex. P-2, a letter dated Nil written by Inderjeet Kaur Nagi to her parents.

Respected father and mother, Sat Shree Akal ?

Papa? I remembering of you with sorrow heart. Rani‟s father is harassing me very much. He beats and does not give the expenses for daily needs. He uses to pressurize me to bring Rs. 5000/- from my parental, otherwise he will set me ablaze. He does not allow me to speak to anyone in the street. He also does not allow me to go to my parents‟ house and further says that no one of my relative shall visit me. He says that bear only girls and that he will have male child by getting another marriage after burning me. He asks me to bring television and fridge from my parents house. I am very sad. (he) says that he has to offer television and fridge in dowry for his sister, so I should arrange the same from my parents house.

Yours daughter sd/-/Q2 Inderjeet Kaur In English"

"Translation of Ex. P-5, a letter dated Nil written by Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, to her parents.

Respected father and mother,

Sat Shri Akal. We are alright and I pray to Guru Nanak Dev for your well being. The further information is that the father of Raini has made my life miserable. He is demanding Rs.5000/- and has asked me neither to visit my parents nor to meet anyone. He beats me mercilessly. He says that he will burn me after pouring (Kerosene) oil and he would remarry. I am very perturbed.

Yours perturbed daughter sd/-

Inderjeet Kaur (In English)"

19. A reading of these letters indicates that Inderjit Kaur was very

unhappy. There are references to the demands being made by the

appellant Kamaljit Singh and even of him beating her mercilessly.

Exhibit P-5 also contains a threat that he would burn her after pouring

kerosene oil and would remarry. The letters also indicate that the

appellant was unhappy with Inderjit Kaur for giving birth to only

daughters and not sons. The handwriting Expert V.K. Khanna (PW-21)

has given his opinion that the English signatures marked Q1 to Q3 in

the said three letters were similar to the English signatures marked A1

and A2 contained in Exhibit PW-20/A. Signature A1 is from the

admission form dated 12.01.1982, in respect of her daughter Gurpreet

Kaur Nagi, in the nursery, in Public Montessary School. Inderjit Kaur

had signed at the place marked A1 as the guardian. A2 is the signature

contained in a Greeting Card sent at the time of new year‟s eve. As per

PW-21 (V.K. Khanna, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I, Central

Forensic Science Laboratory, C.B.I. New Delhi), there was no

significant difference between the admitted signatures marked A1 and

A2 and the questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q3. He also stated that

the cumulative consideration of the said signatures and points of

similarity observed between them were beyond the range of accident or

co-incident. The only conclusion that can be drawn from his testimony

is that the signatures marked Q1 to Q3 in the said three letters were

those of deceased Inderjit Kaur, which, in turn, establishes the fact that

the said letters had been written by her.

20. The learned counsel for the appellant had raised the plea that PW-

6 (Khajan Singh) could not read the said letters. He had also stated that

Inderjit Kaur did not know Gurmukhi and that he only knew Urdu.

These pleas made by the learned counsel for the appellant are without

substance. What PW-6 (Khajan Singh) stated has to be considered in

the correct perspective. He stated that none of his daughters knew

Gurmukhi. Gurmukhi is a script which is employed for writing

Punjabi, just as Devnagri is the script in which Hindi is written and

Arabic / Persian is the script in which Urdu and Sindhi are written.

However, this does not mean that the said languages cannot be

expressed in any other script. Sometimes, Hindi is written in the roman

script; Punjabi was predominantly written in the Urdu script. The

simplicity of Devnagri script has lead to the younger generation

expressing their languages in that script. Now a days, even the

language Urdu is on many occasions written in the Devnagri script.

Similarly, the letters (Exhibit P-1, P-2 and P-5), though in Punjabi

language, have been written in the Devnagri script. Thus, what PW-6

(Khajan Singh) has stated is correct. His daughter Inderjit Kaur did not

know the Gurmukhi script. But he did not say that she did not know

Punjabi. Thus, no capital can be made by the defence on the statements

made by PW-6 (Khajan Singh) with regard to his daughters not

knowing Gurmukhi. Insofar as PW-6 (Khajan Singh) not being able to

read any other script other than the Urdu script, we cannot detract from

the fact that the said witness has stated that the letters were read out to

him by his other daughters. Consequently, it is clearly established that

the letters (Exhibit P-1, P-2 and P-5) had been written by Inderjit Kaur

to her father PW-6 (Khajan Singh) and that they disclosed her

miserable plight. The question as to why she should write letters to her

father when her father lived at a distance less than that of the post

office, can be easily answered by indicating that she was so fearful that

she did not want to be seen visiting her father‟s house which was

nearby and it was this reason that she bypassed her father‟s house and

posted those letters at the post office. This is a possible reason, there

could be other reasons. Whatever be the reason, the fact remains that

she wrote the letters and they were received by her father PW-6

(Khajan Singh).

21. We now come to the question of the dying declarations. The

counsel for the parties had only referred to three dying declarations.

One made to PW-10 (Baldev Singh); one made to Dr Deepak Mittal

(PW-7) as recorded in the MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A); and one recorded in

the form of Exhibit-PW-17/A before PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar Goel)

and PW-17 (Ram Kishan). However, we notice that there is a fourth

dying declaration Exhibit-PW-19/D which had been made to Dr Vinod

Kumar Goel (PW-19) at the time of admission in the burns ward. It is

well-settled that a conviction can be based on a dying declaration

without requiring any further corroboration provided it is of a stellar

quality, in the sense that it is both authentic and truthful. A dying

declaration can be oral or written and could even be in the form of

gestures. If it can be established that the dying declaration was indeed

made by the person who died and if it can be further established that

the statement is truthful, a conviction can be based thereupon. With

regard to Exhibit-PW-17/A, we find that there is some doubt as regards

its authenticity. Those doubts have arisen because the prosecution has

not been able to disclose as to who was the scribe of the statement.

PW-17 (Ram Kishan) has stated that he did not record the statement.

He also stated in his cross-examination that he does not remember who

recorded the statement Exhibit-PW-17/A. He also stated that the

statement is not signed by the scribe and that at the time when the

statement was made by Inderjit Kaur, it was only the doctor (Dr Vinod

Kumar Goel) and himself who were present and no one else. This

certainly raises a conundrum. When he did not scribe the statement,

PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar Goel) also did not scribe the statement and

nobody else other than the two of them and the injured Inderjit Kaur

was present, then how could the statement (Exhibit-PW-17/A) exist at

all ?

22. Even the attesting witness (Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh) has

not been produced, although he was cited as a witness. There may have

been some irregularities in recording the statement (Exhibit-PW-17/A),

and that by itself poses a cloud on the authenticity of the same.

Therefore, Exhibit-PW-17/A cannot be made the basis of a conviction

on its own.

23. We shall now consider the oral dying declaration said to have

been made to PW-19 (Baldev Singh). This witness has also

contradicted himself at times. The prosecution case is that it was his

taxi which was used for transporting the injured Inderjit Kaur from her

house to the hospital, but in his cross-examination, he has stated that he

did not know who brought the taxi there. By implication, it means that

the vehicle used for transporting Inderjit Kaur was not his taxi. This

witness has apparently also concealed his relationship with the family

of the deceased Inderjit Kaur. In his cross-examination, PW-10

(Baldev Singh) stated that he had cordial relations with Khajan Singh

on account of them being neighbours. He also stated that he was not

related to Khajan Singh in any manner whatsoever. However, in

Exhibit-PW-10/DA, which is a signed statement made by the said

witness, it is stated that the deceased Inderjit Kaur was his relative. It

is apparent that he has contradicted himself on this aspect. From this, it

can be inferred that PW-10 (Baldev Singh) did not want to disclose his

relationship with Inderjit Kaur‟s family in order to portray himself as

an independent chance witness. Moreover, his account of the incident

seems somewhat unbelievable. According to him, he was passing by

the front of the house of the accused on 12.05.1983 at about 9.30 p.m.

He heard a noise there and found that many persons had collected. He

then went inside the house of the accused and at that time he saw

Inderjit Kaur burning inside the bathroom and crying. He has also

stated to have seen Balbir Kaur, the mother of the appellant Kamaljit

Singh and two other boys, who were not Sikhs, pouring water over

Inderjit Kaur. He stated that, on his asking, Inderjit Kaur told him that

her husband Kamaljit Singh had dragged her by her hair from the

kitchen to the bathroom, poured kerosene oil over her and set her on

fire and thereafter ran away from the back door. He then stated that he

alongwith two or three other persons of that mohalla, removed Inderjit

Kaur to the hospital in a taxi which was brought by some persons.

Even though we may not entirely believe the testimony of PW-10

(Baldev Singh) with regard to the manner of occurrence and the factum

of Inderjit Kaur having made the dying declaration to him, this much is

clear that PW-10 (Baldev Singh) was the person who took Inderjit Kaur

to LNJPN Hospital.

24. The fact that PW-10 (Baldev Singh) brought Inderjit Kaur to

LNJPN Hopsital is also recorded in the MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A). What

is significant is that the said MLC clearly records the alleged history of

Inderjit Kaur as having been burnt by her husband after pouring

kerosene oil. Significantly, it is also recorded that the history was

given by the patient herself and that she was conscious. The MLC

(Exhibit-PW-7/A) has been proved by Dr Deepak Mittal (PW-7), who

is the person who made the same. His testimony has not been shaken

despite him being subjected to cross-examination. The learned counsel

for the appellant had tried to make capital out of the fact that the said

witness, namely, PW-7 (Dr Deepak Mittal) stated that a person who

responds sufficiently to a prick given on the foot or any other part of

the body is termed as conscious. But the said witness has also clarified

that while showing such a patient to be conscious, it is usually also

mentioned as to whether the patient was drowsy or delirious in case

such a patient was not obeying oral commands. From this, it cannot be

said that the statement made by the patient herself before PW-7 (Dr

Deepak Mittal) was not made by her in a conscious state of mind.

There is nothing on record to suggest otherwise. The learned counsel

for the appellant had also stated that Dr Deepak Mittal was not a fully

qualified doctor and, therefore, no sanctity ought to be placed on the

recording in the MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A). PW-7 (Dr Deepak Mittal)

has clarified in his cross-examination that he had joined the Casualty

Department of the said hospital on 01.04.1983. At that time, he was

doing his „House Job‟ having completed his internship on 31.03.1983.

He had, however, not so far been given the M.B.B.S. degree. Whether

PW-7 (Dr Deepak Mittal) had received the M.B.B.S. degree or not, is

not of much significance in the present case. What we have to see is

whether Inderjit Kaur made the statement as recorded in MLC (Exhibit-

PW-7/A) or not ? PW-7 (Dr Deepak Mittal) is a neutral and

independent witness and there is nothing which has come in evidence

to indicate that what he has recorded is not what Inderjit Kaur stated.

Therefore, this dying declaration cannot be pushed aside.

25. We now come to the fourth dying declaration which has been

recorded by PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar Goel) himself. The said dying

declaration is exhibited as Exhibit-PW-19/D and forms part of the case-

sheet at the burns ward. As per the said dying declaration, which has

already been set out above, Inderjit Kaur stated that her husband had

quarrelled with her and beaten her and then dragged her to the

bathroom and sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire.

His mother had also helped him in the above process. It is only in this

dying declaration that a role has been ascribed to the mother-in-law

also. PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar Goel) categorically stated in his

examination-in-chief that "the patient at the time of her admission had

also made statement before me. It is recorded in case-sheet at page 10.

It is Exhibit-PW-19/D. It is also in my hand". It is interesting to note

that although PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar Goel) has been subjected to

lengthy cross-examination on technical aspects, no questions have been

put to him in such cross-examination with regard to Exhibit-PW-19/D.

Thus, this dying declaration (Exhibit-PW-19/D) has gone unchallenged.

What is of great significance is that it is PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar

Goel) himself, who had, by his endorsement Exhibit-PW-19/A on the

MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A), certified that the patient is fit to give her

statement at 11.40 p.m. on 12.05.1983. There is nothing on record to

suggest that the statement recorded by PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar Goel)

in Exhibit-PW-19/D was not the correct and authentic statement made

by Inderjit Kaur.

26. We are now left to consider the question of whether the

administering of pathedine would have affected the mental faculties of

Inderjit Kaur in such a manner that whatever she stated could be termed

as her imagination in a state of delirium or semi-consciousness. It is

important to note that the dying declaration, as recorded in Exhibit-PW-

7/A, was made at a stage prior to Inderjit Kaur being sent for admission

in the burns ward, i.e., prior to 11.10 p.m. The pathedine injection was

given to Inderjit Kaur in the burns ward and therefore, there was no

question of pathedine affecting her statement made to Dr Deepak

Mittal, as recorded in the MLC (Exhibit-PW-7/A).

27. With regard to the dying declaration as recorded in Exhibit-PW-

19/D, it must be remembered that it was made at the time of admission

in the burns ward which was at 11.10 p.m. From page 5 of the case-

sheet (Exhibit-PX-1), it is apparent that the pathedine injection of 100

mg was given at 1.30 a.m. on 13.05.1983. It is obvious that Exhibit-

PW-19/D had been recorded prior to the administering of pathedine

injection and, therefore, the question of its sedative and euphoric

effects having taken place does not at all arise. In fact, even the dying

declaration (Exhibit-PW-17/A) had been recorded between 11.40 p.m.

on 12.05.1983 and 12.05 a.m. on 13.05.1983, i.e., much prior to the

giving of the pathedine injection. Thus, the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellant on the effects of pathedine injection

are wholly irrelevant.

28. Considering the totality of the circumstances, even if we are to

doubt the authenticity of the dying declarations made to PW-10

(Baldev Singh) and the dying declaration (Exhibit-PW-17/A), the

correctness of the dying declarations made to Dr Deepak Mittal at the

time of admission at LNJPN Hospital, as recorded in Exhibit-PW-7/A

as also to PW-19 (Dr Vinod Kumar Goel), as recorded at the time of

admission in the burns ward vide Exhibit-PW-19/D, stand established.

This, coupled with the established motive, as indicated by the letters

(Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-5), is enough to prove the case of the

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. We are also in agreement with

the submissions made by Mr Dudeja that the possibility of tutoring the

two defence witnesses cannot be ruled out and, therefore, reliance

cannot be placed on their testimonies. As a result, the conviction and

sentence awarded by the trial court are upheld.

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant will be given the benefit

of Section 428, CrPC.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

P.K. BHASIN, J September 25, 2009 dutt