Jage Ram And Anr. vs State Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 2952 Del

           * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                       + CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 525/1999
     %                                         Date of decision 15.04.2015

JAGE RAM & ANR.                                     .......... Appellant
                              Through : Mr. M. L. Yadav, Advocate.
                                      versus
STATE OF DELHI                                       ...........Respondent
                              Through : Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for State.
         CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

G. S. SISTANI, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 10.9.99 and order on sentence dated 14.9.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:

"Police challaned all the above named 3 accused persons and sent them to the court to face trial for the offence u/s. 302 r/w 120-B and 34 IPC on the allegations that Smt. Murti (deceased) was living with her husband in house No. RZ-31 New Roshanpura Extn., Najafgarh, Delh and she obtained divorce from her previous husband and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from his and thereafter, she married for the second time with Raj Kumar, the son of above named accused Jage Ram and Vedo. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased has paid the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to the above named accused Ram Singh, who is her maternal grandfather and he was not returning the said amount despite demands made by the deceased and on 1.7.97 at about 7 p.m. the above named accused Ram Singh along with his son and co-accused Dharambir (who is already P.O.) and the above named two other co-accused Jage Ram and Vedo went to the house of the deceased and at that time the husband of the deceased was not present in the house and the accused Ram Singh poured kerosene oil from a container on the deceased and set her ablaze and the deceased received burn injuries and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in the PCR Van where she was medically treated and on receiving information of this incident, DD No. 27-A (Ex.PW21/A) was recorded and the copy thereof was handed over to SI Shailender Singh, who along with Const. Manoj went to the place of occurrence and came to know that the injured has already been taken to the hospital and thereafter SI Shailender Singh went to the hospital and he also informed the SDM about this incident as the deceased had received burn injuries within 7 years of her marriage and Si Shailender Singh reached in the hospital and Sh. Devender Singh, SDM, also reached in the hospital at about 11 p.m. and SI Shailender Singh moved application (Ex.PW21/B) before the doctor for recording the statement of the injured Murti and the doctor declared her to be fit for statement through his endorsement (Ex.PW20/B) and thereafter Sh. Deveder

Singh, SDM, recorded the statement (dying declaration Ex.PW8/A) of the deceased and in the said dying declaration the deceased told that she had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- to accused Ram Singh which he was not returning despite the demands made by her and on that day at about 7 p.m. the above named all the three accused persons alongwith their co-accused Dharambir came to her house and accused Ram Singh poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze and thereafter on the next day on the directions of the SDM, the case was got registered against the accused persons. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 2.7.1997, the IO went to the place of occurrence and got the same photographed and also got the same inspected from the crime team and he also seized from the spot oil container (Ex.P.1), burnt match stick (Ex.P.2), match box (Ex.P.3), 5 match stick (which were in the match box collectively) (Ex.P.4) and the broken pieces of bangles (Ex.P.5) and he also prepared the site plan (Ex.PW21/C) of the place of occurrence and the IO also recorded the statements of the witnesses at the spot. It is the further case of the prosecution that Murti died in the hospital on 7.1.97 and thus inquest proceedings were completed and her dead body was sent for post-mortem. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused Jage Ram was arrested, on 3.7.97 and on 23.12.97 the above named accused Ram Singh was arrested and the above named accused Vedo was arrested on 31.8.98 and her supplementary challan was filed in the court and the IO also got prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence from the draftsman."

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses in all.

Thereafter, statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein oral and as well as documentary evidence were put to them in question form and they denied the allegations made against them and claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.

4. After appreciating the entire material available on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 10.9.99 and order on sentence dated 14.9.99 convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as stated above.

5. Appellant No. 1 Jage Ram died in the month of October, 2014 and appeal against him stood abated vide order dated 18.07.2014.

6. Mr. M. L. Yadav, Advocate appearing for appellant/Vedo submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant/Vedo is contrary to law and the facts established on record. It is argued that in the instant case the deceased made one oral dying declaration and two written dying declarations and the so called dying declaration relied upon by the learned Trial Court is surrounded by suspicion there being every chance that the signatures purporting to be of Murti Devi were obtained on a blank paper as the prosecution failed to prove that she was in a fit state of mind to give a statement despite 80% deep burns. It is further argued that there are many inconsistencies in the dying declarations of the deceased.

7. Mr. Yadav contended that the dying declaration Ex.PW8/A does not attribute any specific role to the appellant/Vedo and the only role specified in Ex.PW8/A is that she accompanied Ram Singh to the scene of occurrence. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that appellant/Vedo was having any ill-will or was inimical towards the deceased. It is further contended that first written dying declaration of the deceased

incorporated in her MLC Ex.PW20/A proved by PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai shows that the deceased sustained burn injuries due to bursting of stove and the same has not been challenged by the prosecution. The burn injuries caused to the deceased from stove burst mentioned in Ex.PW20/A is corroborated with the oral dying declaration made by deceased to her parents PW6 Smt. Krishna and PW7 Jagdish and PW2 Daya Prakash, the only independent witness.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Feroz Khan Ghazi, Learned counsel for the State argued that the dying declaration Ex.PW-8/A was recorded by PW8 Devender Singh, SDM after the doctor had declared the deceased to be fit for statement; that in the dying declaration, the name of the appellant/Vedo has been mentioned and the deceased narrated the events which took place on the day of the incident; that the motive of the appellants in committing the murder also stands proved as they wanted to usurp Rs. 50,000/- of the deceased and entered into criminal conspiracy to murder her; that recovery of articles seized from the spot have been duly proved by the prosecution.

9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties.

10. The case of the prosecution rests on the dying declarations of the deceased. We deem it necessary to narrate the principles governing dying declaration, laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments. In K. Ramachandra Reddi v. The Public Prosecutor : 1976 Cri LJ 1548, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:-

"The dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and not being the statement on oath so that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the Courts have to apply the strictest scrutiny and the closest circumspections to the statement before acting upon it. While great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because the person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person yet the Court has to be on guard against the statement of the deceased being a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of his imagination. Once a court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can be sufficient to found the conviction even without any further corroboration."

11. Though, in law there is no bar in acting on a part of the dying declaration, it has to pass the test of reliability. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible evidence and unless evidence is tested by cross-examination it is not creditworthy. A dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself guarantee of the truth of the statement of the deceased regarding circumstances leading to his death. But at the same time the dying declaration like any other evidence has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility to be acceptable. It is more so, as the accused does not get an opportunity of questioning veracity of the statement by cross-examination. The dying declaration if found reliable can form the base of conviction.

12. In the present case, there is one oral dying declaration made by the deceased to her parents PW6 Smt. Krishna and PW7 Jagdish, the only independent witness. Apart from the oral dying declaration, there are two other written dying declarations being Ex.PW20/A the statement of the deceased recorded by PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai and Ex.PW8/A which was recorded by PW8 Devender Singh, SDM, which formed the basis for registering the present criminal case.

13. It is well settled if there are more dying declarations than one, then the Court has also to scrutinise all the dying declarations to find out if each one of them passes the test of being trustworthy. The Court must further find out whether different dying declarations are consistent with each other in material particulars before accepting and relying upon the same. Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witness or witnesses testifying to the same are found reliable on a careful scrutiny, it becomes a very important and reliable piece of evidence and if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any inducement, such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording a conviction even without looking for any corroboration. In Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka : 2007 (3) JCC 2355, Hon'ble Apex Court has held :

" where there are more than one dying declarations made by the deceased, extra care has to be taken to see as to which dying declaration inspires confidence. The one which inspires confidence has to be accepted. If none inspires confidence, each has to be discarded."

14. It is true that the conviction can be based on the dying declaration itself provided it is satisfactory and reliable

and if there are any infirmities of such nature warranting further assurance, then the Courts look for further corroboration. It is also well settled that the statement should be consistent throughout if the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without even any corroboration. In a case where there are more than one dying declarations and if some inconsistencies are noticed between one and the other, the Court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. In scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the Court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances as observed in Kamala v. state of Punjab : 1993 Cri LJ 68, the Apex court has held as follows:-

"It is well settled that dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction provided that it is free from infirmities and satisfies various tests .............. in a case where there are more than one dying declaration if some inconsistencies are noticed between one and the other, the court has to examine the nature of inconsistencies namely whether they are material or not. In scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the Court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances."

Where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred.

In Paniben v. State of Gujrat : 1992 Cri LJ 2919, the Apex Court observed that "Of course, if the plurality of dying declarations could be held to be trustworthy and reliable they have to be accepted".

15. In the light of the above principles, we will consider the dying declarations in the instant case and will ascertain the truth with reference to all dying declarations made by deceased Murti.

16. PW2 Daya Prakash, the only independent witness deposed :

"About 6-7 months back, Murthi had burnt at about 6:30/7:00 p.m.. I along with Madan Lal, Dilbagh and Rajender were sitting out the house of Rajender. Murthi came out in the gali while in flames by saying "Bachao Bhachao". We extinguished the fire. On enquires, she told that she had received burn injuries on stove."

17. PW6 Krishna, mother of the deceased deposed :

"I made inquiries from my daughter as to how she has received burn injuries. She told me that she had received burn injuries from burning stove."

18. PW7 Jagdish, father of deceased also appeared in the witness box and deposed on the same lines as of PW6 Krishna Devi.

19. The first dying declaration was given by deceased to PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai, who reproduced the same in writing and proved the same as Ex.PW20/A. PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai deposed:

"On 01.07.1997, I was posted in Safdarjung Hospital and was working as Sr. Resident. On that day, I had medically examined Murti in the hospital at about 9:15 p.m. The patient has given the history of sustaining

burns while cooking food on kerosene stove. And suddenly, the stove burst and she sustained the burns. On examining Murti, I found that her condition was critical but she was conscious. Her pulse rate was 120 per minutes regular. Respiratory rate was 22 per minute. She was dehydrated. She was having 80% burns on her body. On 01.07.1997 at about 11:20 p.m., after examining Murti, I had also declared her fit for giving statement at 11:20 p.m., on the application moved by the IO, vide my endorsement Ex.PW20/B, which also bears my signatures at point „A‟.

20. Deceased gave her second written dying declaration before PW8 Devender Singh, which is reproduced as under:

"Statement of Murti W/o Raj Kumar R/o 2 Block, New Roshan Pura, aged about 21 years.

I along with my husband live at aforesaid address. This is my second marriage and was solemnized in March, 1997. First marriage was solemnized about 3½ years back with Ram Kumar resident of Naya Baans, Delhi. I got legal divorce after three years litigation and I received Rs.50,000/- This amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken by my maternal grandfather Ram Singh S/o Netraram resident of Bapdoda, Haryana. I was demanding the said amount after my second marriage, which he refused to return and threatened me to kill. On 01.07.1997 at about 7:00 p.m. my maternal grandfather S/o Netraram, my maternal uncle Dharambir S/o Ram Singh resident of Gurgaon, Jage Ram S/o Not known (Father-in-law) and my mother-in- law Vedo W/o Jage Ram came to my house, at that time I was sitting, my maternal grandfather took a container of 5 ltr. which was containing 2 ltrs. of kerosene oil and poured on me and set fire with match stick. At that time, I was wearing a terricot Salwar Kameez. I started burning and all four jumped the small height walls and ran away. At that time my husband Raj Kumar was not at home. I started running but fell down in between and thereafter found myself in the hospital. All above four persons did the

said act for not returning the amount of Rs.50,000/-. Legal action be taken against them.

Statement heard and found it correct."

21. The first oral statement was given by deceased to PW2 Daya Prakash that she got burnt injuries due to burst of stove. The similar oral statement was given by deceased to her parents PW6 Smt. Krishna and PW7 Jagdish. The statement Ex.20/A given by deceased before PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai was reproduced into writing which is unchallenged by the prosecution. Apart from this, the deceased made one more statement Ex.PW8/A before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Trial Court has relied on the dying declaration Ex.8/A ignoring the inconsistencies when compared to the other dying declarations. If we examine all these dying declarations one by one, we notice glaring inconsistencies. In oral dying declarations and the earliest dying declaration Ex.PW20/A reproduced by PW20 Dr. Aditya Rai in writing, the deceased stated that she caught on fire while preparing food. When she gave her statement Ex.8/A narrated a totally different and inconsistent version. She stated that I was sitting, my maternal grandfather took a container of 5 ltr. which was containing 2 ltrs. of kerosene oil and poured on me and set fire with match stick. Postmortem report Ex.PW20/A shows the injuries as "Burn throughout body except face, both legs, gluteal region, 80% deep burn." In case, kerosene is poured from the top, the hair, head scalp and face of the deceased would have been burnt but the post-mortem report Ex.PW20/A does not suggest anything about the burn injuries on these areas. Under these circumstances, the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out.

Further, the version given by her in Ex.8/A, does not at all appear to be probable. She has stated that the container was containing approximately 2 litres of kerosene oil but when the police went to the place of occurrence and seized the said container, it was containing approximately the same quantity. Thus it can be seen that there are glaring inconsistencies in these dying declarations.

22. A dying declaration should satisfy all the necessary tests and one such important test is that if there is more than one dying declaration, they should be consistent particularly in material particulars.

23. Under these circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that the dying declarations are inconsistent and in such a situation one cannot pick a statement, Ex.8/A and base the conviction of the appellant on the sole basis of such dying declaration. The Courts have cautioned that in view of the fact that the maker of the statement cannot be cross-examined, the dying declaration should be carefully scrutinised. In the instant case the deceased was wavering for the reasons best known to her.

The inconsistencies among the oral as well as written dying declarations Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW8/A, are enough to manifest the same. Having given our earnest consideration, we feel that under these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to convict the appellant/Vedo on the sole basis of the dying declaration Ex.8/A recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Moreso, the prosecution has failed to assign any role to the appellant/Vedo except her presence.

24. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant/Vedo under Section 302/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appellant/Vedo is acquitted of the charges against her. Bail bond is cancelled.

G. S. SISTANI, J.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

APRIL 15, 2015 gr