AMARJEET vs STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: May 07, 2024
Pronounced on: July 02, 2024
+ CRL.A. 755/2002
AMARJEET …… Appellant
Through: In person with Mr. Inderdeep Singh, Advocate
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI …..Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor with Inspector Mukesh Kumar
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
1. The appellant has assailed Trial Courts judgment dated 06.10.2001 and Order on Sentence dated 11.01.2001 whereby he has been held guilty of committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence, in Sessions Case No. 182/99, arising out of the FIR No. 204/1999, registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi.
2. The appellant has averred that he was living as tenant on the first floor of house No. F- 389, Dakshinpuri, Delhi. The deceased Sumitra Devi, who is a married woman but deserted by her husband, was living on the ground floor of House No. F-389, Dakshinpuri with her father.
3. On 05.04.1999 at around 10 a.m., Sumitra Devi was found lying in gali in completely burnt condition. While she was being taken to the hospital, she told PW-3 Rajinder, her cousin and PW-13 Head Constable Bhamar Puri, who were in the van, that she was beaten up by appellant-accused Amarjeet Singh, who had poured kerosene oil on her; put her on fire and pushed her from the stairs. In the hospital, she told the doctor (PW-16) who examined her, that Amarjeet Singh had put kerosene oil over her and lit her up and threw her down the stairs, which is recorded in the MLC. The deceased was found with 100% burns at 11:30 a.m. and died of burn injuries on the same day i.e. 05.04.1999 about 2.10 p.m.
4. Based upon the statement of doctor, FIR No. 204/1999 was initially registered under Section 307 IPC, however, after her death on the same day i.e. 05.04.1999, the accused was arrested under Section 302 IPC. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 18.01.2000, on the basis of history of the deceased recorded in the MLC, framed charges against the accused under Section 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The appellant-accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the charges levelled against him, however, did not led any evidence in his defence.
6. In order to prove charges against the appellant, prosecution examined 16 witnesses, including brother of the deceased (PW-1), her father (PW-2) and cousin brother (PW-3), who saw the deceased in gali in burnt condition.
7. Learned Trial Court, based upon the testimony of the witnesses examined and materials placed on record, vide impugned judgment dated 06.10.2001, held that the accused had committed murder of Sumitra Devi by burning her and was, therefore, held guilty of committing offence under Section 302 IPC. Vide Order on Sentence dated 11.10.2001, the appellant was awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
8. The challenge to the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2001 by appellant is on the ground that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that the dying declaration of deceased was not free from infirmities.
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that the dying declaration should be of such a nature that it could inspire confidence of the Court to its correctness whereas in the present case, the doctor had declared Sumitra Devi unfit for making any statement as she was in 100% burnt condition and was not in a fit mental and physical condition to give her statement. Though Doctor while recording the MLC had mentioned self but did not even record her correct name, which castes a doubt as to whether the deceased was able to state correct facts or not.
10. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution case is not corroborated by any independent witness, as even though the whole family of the deceased was staying in the same premises, but no one neither heard her quarrel with the appellant nor saw her being burnt by the appellant. Also submitted that the deceased wanted to marry the appellant and was pressurizing him to settle down with her, to which he was not inclined and also she was disturbed because her family suspected her of having an affair with the appellant and in such circumstances; she had put herself on fire.
11. Also submitted that the wireless operator, who had recorded the DD report being DD No.6A and informed the police station Ambedkar Nagar, recorded that one woman had burnt herself. As per this report, the deceased might have committed suicide by burning herself and as such, appellant has been falsely implicated by the family of the deceased, who doubted that she was having an affair with him.
12. Further submitted that even though the vaginal slides of the deceased prepared by the doctor and analysed by the CSFL, Lodhi Road showed presence of human semen on three slides, however, it did not specify as to whose semen was detected.
13. Learned counsel submitted that the present case suffers from unfair investigation and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is premised upon the statement of interested witnesses, which suffer from material contradictions and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
14. To the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State submitted that the decision of the learned Trial Court is premised upon dying declaration of the deceased, testimony of material witnesses and scientific evidence placed on record, which calls for no interference by this Court. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be rejected.
15. The submissions advanced by learned counsel representing both the sides were heard at length and this Court has gone through impugned judgment, testimony of witnesses recorded and other material placed before the learned Trial Court.
16. PW-1 Om Prakash, brother of the deceased, in his examination in chief recorded before the Trial Court stated that on 05.04.1999 at about 10:00 a.m. he was on the ground floor of the house when he heard noises from outside. When he went out, he found his sister Sumitra in flames and the appellant was extinguishing the fire. He was not aware from where appellant had come nor his sister had told him anything. The PCR van and his brother, Rajinder, also came and his sister was taken to Safdarjung Hospital in burnt condition. He deposed that he inquired from his sister in hospital who told that she had gone to the first floor of the house and the accused gave her beatings and burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her and the accused pushed her down from the stairs. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he heard voices of neighbours from gali and so went out but did not ask her anything at that moment and tried to extinguish the fire of his sister. The doctor had permitted him to see his sister, who was bandaged and she died within 10-15 minutes of her reaching hospital. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police on the same day.
17. PW-2 Ram Abhilal, father of the deceased, in his examination-in-chief stated that his daughter got married in 1993 but she was deserted by her husband for demand of dowry and she had never told him anything about accused. On 05.04.1999, he was in his office when he came to know that she was burnt and after reaching home, he came to know that she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, so, he rushed there. Upon inquiry, she told him that the accused had poured kerosene oil on her and pushed her down from stairs. In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he did not remember the name of the neighbour who had telephonically called to inform him that his daughter had been burnt. He further stated that his daughter died after about half an hour of meeting him. He denied the suggestion that his daughter was not in a position to speak or that she had not told him of accused pouring kerosene oil on her, burning her and pushing her down from stairs.
18. PW-3 Rajinder, cousin of deceased, in his examination-in-chief stated that when he came to know at around 10:00 AM that Sumitra was burnt, he went to the gali where she was lying in burnt condition. The appellant had kept head of deceased in his lap. Also stated that when the deceased was lying in gali in burnt condition, he enquired from her and she told that the appellant-accused had burnt her by pouring kerosine oil on her. In his cross-examination, PW-3 Rajinder stated that one lady living in her neighbourhood had informed him that Sumitra had received burnt injuries. He stated that he was not aware as to who had informed the police about the incident but the police came in five minutes. He also stated that many persons had gathered there and the deceased was crying that she was burnt by the appellant-accused. Further stated that he had taken the deceased to the hospital and the appellant had also accompanied them to the hospital. Also stated that in the hospital doctors enquired from him and he told that Sumitra had told him that Amarjeet had burnt her. Sumitra died after two hours of getting admitted in hospital and at around 02:00 PM police recorded his statement and thereafter he came back to his home.
19. The prosecution also examined official witnesses i.e. PW-5 W/ASI Kailash Rani, PW-6 Constable Rattan Lal, PW-7 Constable Sonu Kaushik and PW-8 Constable Bhumesh Kumar.
20. PW-8 Constable Bhumesh Kumar in his examination-in-chief stated that he had accompanied the Investigating officer to the site from where one stove, one plastic cannon, hair clip and some burnt clothe were seized which were sent for CFL examination. He identified the iron stove (Ex.P1) and the plastic cannon containing kerosene oil (Ex.P2), hair clip (Ex.P4) and burnt piece of cloth (Ex.P5) which were seized from the spot. In his cross-examination PW-8 stated that when he reached the spot of crime, a large crowd had gathered. The first floor of the house, where deceased was burnt, was lying open and was not locked and the deceased was already removed to the hospital. He stated that neither he had asked anyone to stay in the house while the Investigating Officer had gone to the hospital nor anyone was present there. This witness also stated that at the time of seizure of the articles from the spot, no public person was present in the house and all the public persons were standing on the ground near the stairs and also, he did not call any of them nor he remembered whose statement was recorded. This witness also stated that there was no kitchen at the first floor. This witness specifically stated that it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to take care of the recovered articles and he was not aware as to who had deposited the same into malkhana.
21. PW-9 SI Anuj Aggrawal in his examination-in-chief stated that on 05.04.1999, upon receipt of DD No.6A, he along with Constable Bhumesh Kumar had gone to the crime spot from where he learnt that injured Sumitra had been taken to Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, he went to Safdarjung Hospital and took the MLC of Sumitra, however, doctor declared that she was unfit for statement. On the MLC, it was recorded that there was alleged history of burn injury. Her tenant (Amarjeet) beat her up, poured kerosene oil, lit her up and threw her downstairs. This witness stated that there was no eye-witness available in the hospital and even on his return to the spot, he did not find any eye-witness. He got the photographs of place of occurrence and inspected the site. He picked up the plastic cane, burnt clothes, broken bangles, hair clip from inside the room and from the stairs, sealed them, made inquiries from people and recorded statements of the persons and deposited the articles in the malkhana. This witness stated that the appellant/accused had appeared in the police station on 07.04.1999 and got recorded his disclosure statement.
22. During his cross-examination, PW-9 stated he had remained Investigating Officer of this case from 05.04.1999 till 07.04.1999. He stated that when he reached the spot, a large crowd had gathered there. The incident had taken place on the first storey of the building and he went there to see if anyone was there and found that the house was open. Further stated that he did not do the spot inspection at that time and upon inquiry, he was told that the injured was removed to the hospital and she had burnt herself. So, he left for the hospital, where he stayed for almost 15 minutes and thereafter returned the spot, where he remained till 03:00 PM on that day. PW-9 stated that after coming to know about death of the injured, he went to the hospital. He recorded statement of Ram Abhila, Om Prakash and Bhawarpuri and one more person, however stated that he did not record any statement inside the hospital but after coming out of hospital. He stated to have made an application to doctor during his first visit to hospital for recording of statement of the deceased while she was admitted, to which doctor refused, her being unfit for statement.
23. PW-10 Dr. Chander Kanta, Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, in her testimony proved the post mortem report Ex. PW10/A.
24. PW-13 Head Constable Bhamar Puri in his examination-in-chief stated that he was on duty at PCR van and at around 10:35, upon receipt of a call that one woman got burnt, he rushed the van to the spot. He found a burnt woman just outside the house on the road. He put her in the van and took her to Safdarjung Hospital. PW-13 stated that on the way, injured was repeatedly saying that she was burnt by Amarjeet and that she was conscious upto the time when they got her admitted in the hospital.
25. In his cross-examination, PW-13 stated that in PCR besides him, one driver and one gunman were there. When he reached the spot of crime, a large crowd of persons had gathered. Two public persons had also accompanied the burnt woman in the van while taking her to the hospital. He was sitting in the front portion of the van the woman was on the rear side. Both the public persons had stayed there for about one hour in the hospital. When they reached hospital, local police had not reached. He sent a wireless message to the police about reaching the hospital and informed the fact stated by the woman that she was burnt by Amarjeet. He also stated that the woman was burnt on portions below neck and was speaking.
26. PW-14 Dr. Savita, Safdarjung Hospital, in her statement identified the signatures of Dr. Parag who had prepared MLC Ex.PW-14/A. However, she stated that the MLC was not prepared in her presence. This witness also stated that even a person with 100% burn is in a position to speak if he is conscious, however, the same has not been mentioned in any book.
27. PW-15 Inspector Ramesh Kumar Aats, in his examination-in-chief stated that the investigation in the present case was marked to him on 05.04.1999. The case file was handed over to him by SI Anuj Kumar, to whom he had directed to get the post mortem of the deceased done and also to deposit the exhibits in the malkhana. He had arrested the appellant-accused on 07.04.1999 vide arrest memo Ex.W15/C and got his disclosure statement recorded. The appellant-accused was got medically examined on 08.04.1999 and on the pointing of SI Anuj he prepared the site plan. After obtaining directions from the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, sent the exhibits to CFSL for examination on 09.04.1999.
28. PW-16 Dr. Parag Neog, Ordnance Factory, Madras, in his examination-in-chief stated that he had prepared the MLC Ex.PW-14/A of deceased Sumitra Devi on 05.04.1999 after examining her on that date. He stated that she was admitted and examined with alleged history of sustaining burn injuries when her tenant Amardeep beat her up and poured kerosene oil over her and lit her up and threw her down the staircase. In his cross-examination PW-16 stated that the speech of the injured Sumitra Devi was perfectly right when she gave history to him. He also stated that informant of history was self, i.e. patient herself.
29. The appellant/accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied that deceased Sumitra told her brother that she went to the first floor of his house where he beat her and burnt her by putting kerosene oil and pushed her downstairs. Appellant-accused stated that nothing was recovered by the IO in his presence. Also stated that he had not made any disclosure statement to the police on 07.04.1999. However, he admitted that the photographs Ex.PW-8/A to A12 were of his room. In his defence, this witness stated that he had gone to the market in the gali to purchase articles and when he came back, she was lying in burnt condition in gali. He tried to save her and burnt his foot in the process. He had also put kambal on her at that time and since he was wearing half pant and t-shirt, therefore, he got his foot burnt. This witness stated that the parents of Sumitra doubted that she was having an affair with him even though it was incorrect, however, he was asked to vacate the house. Further stated that parents and brother of deceased used to beat her thinking that she was having an affair with him and for this reason, they falsely implicated him in this case.
30. Upon scrutiny of the testimony of these witnesses, this Court finds that none of the witnesses have deposed about the fact how deceased Sumitra caught fire or was set on fire. Every witness examined by the prosecution has narrated the incident of the time when Sumitra was lying in gali in burnt condition outside her house. Meaning thereby, there is no eye witness to the incident to allege that appellant-accused had poured kerosine oil on Sumitra and set her on fire. The prosecution case is premised upon the testimony of witnesses, before whom the deceased at different point of time, prior to her death, declared that Amarjeet had poured kerosine oil, set her on fire and threw her from the stairs of the first floor of the house.
31. The question for determination before this Court is as to whether the dying declaration of deceased is credible enough to consider it as a reliable piece of evidence, to bring home the guilt of appellant-accused.
32. Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 spells out the relevance of statement of a person just prior to death. It reads as under:-
32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.- Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:-
(1) when it relates to cause of death.-When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.
33. The afore-noted provisions implies that if any statement is made by a person, as to the cause of his death or any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death in cases in which the cause of death of that person comes into question, would be relevant.
34. There is no doubt to the legal proposition that before accepting dying declaration of a person, the Courts are required to ensure that such a statement is not made under any coercion or pressure. The Court has to test the dying declaration to ensure that the person accused put on trial, solely upon the dying declaration, especially in the absence of any eye witness, is worthy of trust and belief.
35. Spelling out the importance of dying declaration, the Honble Supreme Court in Lakhan Vs. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 514 observed as under:-
9. The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in the legal maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire, which means a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth. The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as the Evidence Act) as an exception to the general rule contained in Section 60 of the Evidence Act, which provides that oral evidence in all cases must be direct i.e. it must be the evidence of a witness, who says he saw it. The dying declaration is, in fact, the statement of a person, who cannot be called as witness and, therefore, cannot be cross-examined. Such statements themselves are relevant facts in certain cases.
36. Further, in Shudhakar Vs. State of M.P. (2012) 7 SCC 569 the Supreme Court observed as under:-
20. The dying declaration is the last statement made by a person at a stage when he is in serious apprehension of his death and expects no chances of his survival. At such time, it is expected that a person will speak the truth and only the truth. Normally in such situations the courts attach the intrinsic value of truthfulness to such statement. Once such statement has been made voluntarily, it is reliable and is not an attempt by the deceased to cover up the truth or falsely implicate a person, then the courts can safely rely on such dying declaration and it can form the basis of conviction. More so, where the version given by the deceased as dying declaration is supported and corroborated by other prosecution evidence, there is no reason for the courts to doubt the truthfulness of such dying declaration.
37. A dying declaration can be recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, Doctor, Police Officer or any normal person. In the present case, Sumitra, in burning condition gave dying declarations before all the persons she came across in the burnt condition. The first such person is PW-1, real brother of the deceased, who deposed before the police as well as the court that he was on the ground floor of the house when he heard noises from outside. When he went out, he found his sister Sumitra in flames and the appellant was extinguishing the fire. He was not aware from where appellant had come nor his sister had told him anything. However, upon asking his sister i.e. deceased Sumitra told him that Amarjeet had poured kerosine oil on her and set her ablaze. PW-2, father of the deceased, was in his office and when he came to know about the incident that Sumitra was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, he directly reached there. PW-2 stated that, in the hospital, when he enquired from his daughter, she told that the appellant-accused had poured kerosine oil on her and set her on fire. PW-3 Rajinder, cousin of deceased, told that when he came to know that Sumitra got burnt, he came to the gali where she was lying in burnt condition. She told him that Amarjeet had set her on fire by putting kerosine oil. PW-3 also stated that while Sumitra was taken to hospital in van, she stated that she was set on fire by Amarjeet.
38. On the evidentiary value of multiple dying declarations, the Honble Supreme Court in Nallam Veera Stayanandam Vs. Public Prosecutor (2004) 10 SCC 769 has observed that in cases where there is more than one dying declaration, it is the duty of the Court to consider each one of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflects the true state of affairs.
39. On this aspect, in Lakhan Vs. State of M.P. (Supra), the Supreme Court observed as under:-
10. This Court has considered time and again the relevance/probative value of dying declarations recorded under different situations and also in cases where more than one dying declaration has been recorded. The law is that if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and made voluntarily by the deceased, conviction can be based solely on it, without any further corroboration. It is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be relied upon without corroboration. When a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be relied upon without having corroborative evidence. The court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased must be in a fit state of mind to make the declaration and must identify the assailants. Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details of the occurrence, it cannot be rejected and in case there is merely a brief statement, it is more reliable for the reason that the shortness of the statement is itself a guarantee of its veracity. If the dying declaration suffers from some infirmity, it cannot alone form the basis of conviction. Where the prosecution version differs from the version given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon.
40. Also, in Shudhakar Vs. State of M.P. (2012) 7 SCC 569 the Supreme Court observed that where the multiple dying declarations are made by the deceased, the test of common prudence would be to first examine which of the dying declarations is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. Further, the attendant circumstances, the condition of the deceased at the relevant time, the medical evidence, the voluntariness and genuineness of the statement made by the deceased, physical and mental fitness of the deceased and possibility of the deceased being tutored are some of the factors which would guide the exercise of judicial discretion by the court in such matters.
41. In the present case, no doubt the prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are related to deceased Sumitra, being her real brother, father and cousin respectively and they have echoed their voice to substantiate her dying declaration in support of prosecution case. To rule out that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 could be interested witnesses, prosecution also got examined PW-13 Head Constable Bhamar Puri, who was driving the van in which Sumitra was taken to the hospital. PW-13 stated that the injured was repeatedly saying that she was burnt by Amarjeet. Also, there is evidence of PW-16 Dr. Parag Neog, who proved the MLC Ex.PW-14/A of deceased Sumitra Devi prepared by him on 05.04.1999. PW-16 Dr. Parag Neog stated that Sumitras speech was perfectly alright when she gave history of burn to him and also that the patient herself had given the history. PW-14 Dr. Savita also stated that even a person with 100% burn is always in a position to speak if he is conscious.
42. PW-10 Dr. Chander Kanta, Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital in her testimony stated that on 07.04.199, she had conducted post-mortem of body of Sumitra Devi. She stated as under:-
Body received in yellow cloth.
Eyes were closed, mouth was partially opened and Rigormortis was passed off in both upper and lower lips. Post-mortem staining was not appreciable due to anti-mortem injuries. No sign of putrefaction was present.
There was irregular burning of scalp hairs, both temple region, part of occipital region, eyebrows and eye lashes.
I noted the following anti-mortem injuries including anti-mortem burn injuries on the body of deceased during external examination:-
1. 100% supercial and deep burns. Anti-mortem burn injuries coming the whole body. There was charring of skin rider, right and left side of leg, left this medial aspect left year, le ft temple region. Skin was pealed off at places revealing area of vital reaction. There was black smoke effects on front of neck, upper part of both breasts.
2. Contusion outer aspect of right upper arm-middle sixe 3cm x 2 cm.
3. Abraded confusion right side of forehead size 3 cm x 2.5 cm.
During internal examination of the deceased, noted the following findings:-
1. There was extra vasation of blood under scalp in the right frontal region. 4cm x 3.5 cm. Brain was 1210 gms in weight, congested, oedematous with petechaemarage.
2. Larynx mass congested with fine carbon suits mixed with mucous extended up to vifurcation trachea.
3. Both legs were congested.
4. Stomach was empty.
5. Liver, kidneys and spine were congested.
6. Uterus was empty.
Local examination after private part revealed old healed hymen at 8,6 and 4 oclock position. Vaginal rugosity diminished.
I gave approx time since death about 2 days. In my opinion, the cause of death was due to shock as a result of 100% superficial and deep, first, second, third and four degree (tupuytrens classification) Type I and II Wilsons classification, anti-mortem burns caused by flames. Anti-mortem injury No.2 and 3 caused by application of blunt force from blunt object.
Sample of scalp hair of the deceased was duly sealed. Three vaginal swab which were taken slights were prepared were duly sealed in a bottle and along with sample of seal were handed over to the police official.
43. In addition, PW-9 SI Anuj Aggarwal, who had inspected the site with PW-8 SI Bhumesh, in his testimony proved the photographs of place of occurrence and stated that he had picked up the plastic cane, burnt clothes, broken bangles, hair clip from inside the room and from the stairs; sealed them, made inquiries from people and recorded statements of the persons and deposited the articles in the malkhana. The RESULT OF ANALYSIS by CFSL reads as under:-
1. The analysis by Gas Liquid Chromatography shows the presence of Kerosine oil in exhibit no.1 and 2. The analysis by Gas Liquid Chromatography shows the presence of Kerosine residues in exhibits marked as no. 3,5,6 & 8.
(Ex.3 is partly burnt cloth recovered from the spot, Ex.5 is burnt cloth lifted from floor, Ex.6 is burnt cloth recovered from stair case and Ex.8 is scalp hair received from Safdarjung Hospital)
(emphasis supplied)
44. Apparently, recovery of stove, kerosene oil, burnt cloth and hair clip of the deceased from the first floor of the house and stairs speaks volume that deceased had gone to the first floor of the house. CFSL report placed on record clearly shows presence of kerosene on these exhibits. This leaves no doubt that deceased Sumitra was set on fire by the appellant Amarjeet, who was the only one present on the first floor of the house at that point of time. Also, appellant-accused is the first person to be seen with deceased while she was found in burnt condition in gali, which proves that the deceased had sustained burn injuries in his presence. But the fact that the deceased in all her dying declarations stated that appellant-Amarjeet had poured kerosene oil on her, set her on fire and threw her from the stairs remains unimpeached. Not only PW-1 and PW-3 but also PW-13 Head Constable Bhamar Puri and PW-16 Dr. Parag Neog have categorically stated that the deceased was in conscious and alert state of mind when she stated that Amarjeet had set her on fire.
45. The afore-noted facts of the present case make it clear that the dying declarations of the deceased are not only consistent but fully credible and trustworthy. In our considered opinion, the learned Trial Court has correctly analysed the dying declarations as well as scientific evidence placed on record while passing the impugned judgment.
46. Finding no error in the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2001 and Order on Sentence dated 11.01.2001, the present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
47. During pendency of the appeal, the sentence awarded to appellant by the learned Trial Court was suspended. The appellant is directed to surrender within one week to undergo the remaining sentence. If the appellant fails to surrender within one week, the learned Trial Court shall take necessary steps to take him into custody.
48. Registry is directed to sent back the Trial Court record along with copy of the judgment for necessary compliance as well as records.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JULY 02, 2024
r
CRL.A. 755/2002 Page 20 of 20