Further, merely
because the parents and other relatives of the deceased
were present in the Hospital, when the statement of the
deceased was recorded, it cannot be said that the said
statement was a tutored one. It is quite natural that
when such an incident happens, the parents and other
relatives try to reach the hospital immediately. Merely
because they were in the hospital, the same is no
ground to disbelieve the dying declaration, recorded by
the Magistrate, who was examined as PW-16.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.261 OF 2021
Satpal vs. State of Haryana
Author: R.SUBHASH REDDY,J.
Dated: March 03, 2021
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the accused in
Session Case No.20 of 2008, on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri,
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05th
September, 2016, passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby, his conviction and
order of sentence, for offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), was confirmed.
3. On information received from J. P. Hospital,
Yamuna Nagar, regarding admission of the deceased,
Pooja Rani, on account of burn injuries, a case was
registered in FIR No. 112 on 20.03.2008, initially
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and on death of Pooja Rani i.e. on
27.03.2008, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was
added. On receipt of information, Mr. Ishwar Singh,
A.S.I. of Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar, went to
the J. P. Hospital along with other police officials
and noticed that the deceased suffered 90 per cent
injuries and at that stage, she was declared fit to
make statement. On the request of the police, Ms. Kumud
Gugnani, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yamuna
Nagar, Jagadhri, recorded the statement of deceased,
Pooja Rani.
4. In the declaration, recorded by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, the
deceased has stated that the appellant / accused has
poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze. After
investigation, Charge-Sheet was filed against the
appellant / accused and three others namely Kamlesh,
Mitter Sain and Anjali, mother-in-law, brother-in-law
and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased.
However, vide order dated 12.08.2008, the other accused
persons were discharged and charge was framed against
the appellant herein, for offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
5. To prove the charge framed by the appellant
herein, the prosecution examined C. Narender Kumar as
PW-1, C. Ram Kumar as PW-2, Jai Pal, ASI as PW-3, EHC
Prem Singh as PW-4, Varsha Rani as PW-5, Kashmiri Lal
as PW-6, Pyara Singh, Inspector as PW-7, Jai Kishan,
ASI as PW-8, Dr. Manisha Singh as PW-9, EHC Satwinder
Singh as PW-10, Raj Kumar, SI as PW-11, Lal Singh, ASI
as PW-12, Dr. Amit Goel as PW-13, Balraj Singh, ASI as
PW-14, Ishwar Singh, ASI as PW-15 and Kumud Gugnani as
PW-16.
6. When the statement of the appellant under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was
recorded, the appellant denied the allegations levelled
against him and pleaded that he was falsely implicated
inasmuch as the deceased, Pooja Rani, was under a
misconception that he had illicit relations with Anjali
(sister-in-law). On behalf of the appellant / accused,
no witnesses were examined.
7. The Trial Court, by appreciating oral and
documentary evidence on record, by judgment and order
dated 03.11.2009, convicted the appellant for offence,
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two years.
8. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentence
imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, the appellant herein, preferred
Criminal Appeal No. D-147-DB of 2010 before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. The High
Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 05th
September, 2016, dismissed the appeal by confirming the
conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the
appellant.
9. We have heard Mrs. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Deepak Thukral,
learned Dy. A.G., appearing for the respondent-State.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended
that though, the evidence on record led by the
prosecution, is not sufficient to prove the guilt of
the accused, the Trial Court has erroneously convicted
the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC
and the same was confirmed by the High Court without
considering various grounds, raised on behalf of the
appellant. It is, further, contended by the learned
counsel that the conviction is mainly based on the
dying declaration, recorded by the Magistrate, who was
examined as PW-16. It is submitted that the dying
declaration was tutored one and the same was made at
the instance of family members of the deceased, who
were there with the deceased in hospital at the
relevant time. It is submitted that, in fact, when the
deceased made attempt to commit suicide, the appellant
has tried his best to extinguish the fire. Lastly, he
has submitted that the conviction, recorded by the
Trial Court, as confirmed by the High Court, is fit to
be set aside by this Court.
11. On the other hand, the learned Dy. A.G., appearing
for the State, has contended that the prosecution has
proved the guilt of the accused for offence under
Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. It is
submitted that immediately on receipt of information,
Mr. Ishwar Singh, ASI went to the hospital, along with
other police officials and found that the deceased has
suffered 90 per cent injuries, but she was in a fit
condition to make statement. It is submitted that, on
request, Ms. Kumud Gugnani, the then Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri,
recorded the statement of deceased, Pooja Rani under
Exhibit ‘Ex-PL’, wherein she stated that she was
married to the appellant three years prior to the
incident and that the appellant was under the influence
of his brother’s wife and used to act on her
instigation. In the statement recorded, the deceased
clearly stated that the appellant has poured kerosene
oil on her and set her ablaze. It is submitted that
merely because her family members have reached the
hospital, on coming to know of the burn injuries,
suffered by the deceased, it cannot be said that the
declaration made by the deceased before the Magistrate
was a tutored one. It is submitted that at the time of
recording of statement of deceased, all the family
members were sent out and the statement was recorded,
as deposed by the deceased. It is submitted that if the
entire evidence is considered, it clearly proves the
case of the prosecution for offence under Section 302
of the IPC. It is submitted that the evidence on record
is properly appreciated by the Trial Court as well as
the High Court, and in view of the concurrent findings,
recorded by both the Courts below, no case is made out
to interfere with the same.
12. Having heard learned counsels on both sides, we
have perused the impugned judgment, judgment of the
Trial Court and other material evidence placed on
record.
13. In this case, it is to be noticed that, at first
instance, on coming to know that the deceased, Pooja
Rani, was admitted to hospital with the burn injuries,
as informed by the police, the ASI went to the hospital
along with other police officials. When it was noticed
that the deceased has suffered 90 per cent injuries and
was in a fit condition to make a declaration, he sent a
request to the concerned Magistrate, upon which, the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yamuna Nagar,
Jagadhri, recorded the statement of the deceased, Pooja
Rani, which was exhibited as Ex-PL. In her dying
declaration, she has clearly stated that the appellant
has poured Kerosene Oil on her and set her ablaze.
Though, the family members of the appellant were also
chargesheeted, they were subsequently discharged vide
Order dated 12.08.2008. On information given to the
parents of the deceased, they have come to hospital.
The deceased, Pooja Rani was admitted in the hospital
on 20.03.2008 and ultimately, succumbed to injuries on
27.03.2008. It is also clear from the material
evidence, placed before this Court, that though the
family members of the deceased were in the hospital,
they were sent out, when the dying declaration was
recorded by the Magistrate, who was also examined on
behalf of the prosecution as PW-16.
14. If we look at dying declaration, recorded by the
Magistrate, it looks natural and no reason to
disbelieve the same. In addition to the dying
declaration, the statements of PW-5 and PW-6, who are
mother and maternal uncle respectively of the deceased,
corroborate the case of prosecution. It is clear from
their statements that the deceased was tortured at the
hands of the appellant and his family members. The
Magistrate, in her deposition, has clearly stated that
the relatives of deceased, Pooja Rani, were not there
at the time of recording dying declaration of the
deceased.
15. Further, it is also relevant to notice here,
though the appellant has stated in his statement,
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that many
persons from the neighbourhood came to the house of the
appellant at the time of incident, no one was examined
on his behalf.
16. If the dying declaration, recorded by PW-16, is
considered along with the depositions of PW-5, PW-6 and
other witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the
prosecution, it clearly establishes the guilt of the
appellant, beyond reasonable doubt, as such, we find no
merit in any of the contentions, advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant. Further, merely
because the parents and other relatives of the deceased
were present in the Hospital, when the statement of the
deceased was recorded, it cannot be said that the said
statement was a tutored one. It is quite natural that
when such an incident happens, the parents and other
relatives try to reach the hospital immediately. Merely
because they were in the hospital, the same is no
ground to disbelieve the dying declaration, recorded by
the Magistrate, who was examined as PW-16.
17. For the above stated reasons and the reasons
recorded by the High Court, we are of the view that
there is no error committed in the impugned judgment
and order, so as to interfere with the same in this
Appeal. This Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
..........................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
..........................J.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
NEW DELHI;
March 03, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment