Delhi District Court
State vs Ashish Kumar on 26 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-006947-2018
Sessions Case No. 377/2018
FIR No. 63/2018
PS: Sarai Rohilla
U/s 302 IPC
State Vs. Ashish Kumar
a) Date of commission of offence : 17.02.2018
b) Name of the complainant : Ms. Sanchi D/o Rajesh
c) Name of accused persons and Ashish Kumar
address : S/o Sh. Ram Asray
R/O H. no. A 320, Jhuggi RPF
Line Daya Basti, Sarai Rohilla,
Delhi
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 302 IPC
e) Plea of the Accused persons: Pleaded Not Guilty
f) Final Order: CONVICTED
Date of institution of the case : 17.05.2018
Date of committal : 17.05.2018
Date on which judgment was reserved : 18.09.2025
Date of judgment : 26.09.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case FIR was registered on the complaint of one Ms. Sanchi D/o Sh. Rajesh. In the complaint, it is stated that on 17.02.2018, when her tuition teacher Saurabh came to return her SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 1 of 34 books in the afternoon, her uncle Ashish got furious and later on, at about 12:05 PM, he , after slapping her 2-3 times , set her of on fire after sprinkling Kerosene oil over her.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 173 CrPC was filed against the accused for offence u/s 302 IPC. After statutory compliance, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Ld. MM-04, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 17.05.2018.
3. Vide order dated 23.05.2018, the case file was sent back to the Court of Ld. MM for conducting the age inquiry as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Gopinath Ghose Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1984 SC 237. After getting the age verification of the accused, wherein the accused was found to be major at the time of the incident, the file was again sent to Court of Sessions vide order dated 09.08.2018.
4. Vide order dated 18.09.2018,the accused was formally charged for commission of offence under section 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 26 witnesses. Further one Sh. Mohit Pathak was dropped from the list of witnesses by Ld. Addl. PP for the State vide his statement dated 11.11.2024.
6. The Witnesses examined by the prosecution to substantiate their case, can be broadly categorized into Four Categories.
7. The First Category of the witnesses consists of Material Witnesses relating to the incident, who are as under:
7.1 PW-1 is Sh. Panna Lal SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 2 of 34 7.2 PW-2 Sh. Rajesh 7.3 PW-4 Ms. Gudiya 7.4 PW-5 Smt. Saroj Devi 7.5 PW-6 Sh. Saurabh Sharma 7.6 PW-20 is Sh. Akhil kumar
8. The Second Category of the witnesses consists of the Doctors who examined the deceased and the accused, who are as under:
8.1 PW-3 is Dr. Shivam 8.2 PW-11 is Dr. Varsha 8.3 PW-12 is Dr. Kapil 8.4 PW-26 is Dr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo
9. The Third Category of witnesses consists of the persons involved in smooth investigation of the case, who are as under:
9.1 PW-9 is Shailender Yadav 9.2 PW-10 is Inspector Rajnish Kumar 9.3 PW-13 HC Sunil 9.4 PW-16 is Retired Inspector Manohar Lal 9.5 PW-17 is ASI Narender Rana 9.6 PW-18 is HC Manoj Kumar 9.7 PW-19 is HC Rahish Kumar 9.8 PW-23 HC Maheenpal 9.9 PW-24 HC Ram Nazar
10. The Fourth Category of the witnesses consists of the police officers involved in the investigation of the case, who are as under:
10.1 PW-8 HC Sudhir 10.2 PW-14 is Inspector Mohinder Singh 10.3 PW-15 is HC Satyaveer 10.4 PW-21 is Inspector Surender Kumar 10.5 PW-22 HC Ajay Sharma 10.6 PW-25 SI Raj Kumar.
11. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to make a brief mention of the role and deposition of theses prosecution witnesses ,category SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 3 of 34 wise as referred herein above. The detail deposition of the witnesses is not being adverted to, as the same shall be referred to while dealing with the necessary ingredients of the offense ,with which the accused has been charged ,vis-a-vis the rival contentions advanced by the Ld.Addl.PP for the state as well as the ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. Even the detailed cross examination of these witnesses is not being mentioned for the sake of brevity, but the same shall be referred to during the course of appreciating the legal as well as the factual issues advanced by the parties.
12. MATERIAL WITNESSES, RELATING TO THE INCIDENT 12.1 PW-1 is Sh. Panna Lal, with whom deceased Sanchi was residing. He deposed about receiving the call from his nephew (father of the deceased) Rajesh about the deceased getting burnt.
12.2 PW-2 Sh. Rajesh is father of the deceased. He deposed about seeing his daughter burnt upon him he poured water and took her to Hospital in TSR and in the meanwhile recorded her statement on his mobile phone of which he got a CD prepared and gave the same to the police. He proved the seizure memo vide which the said CD was seized, as Ex. PW-2/A. 12.3 PW-4 Ms. Gudiya is one of the neighbours, who saw the deceased getting burnt, arranged a TSR in which she along with parents of the deceased took her to hospital. She deposed about recording of the statement of the deceased while in a SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 4 of 34 TSR by her father, PW-2/Rajesh.
12.4 PW-5 Smt. Saroj Devi is mother of the deceased. She deposed that she saw her daughter burnt and her husband throwing water on her. She deposed about her daughter making statement on her way to the hospital in the TSR which was recorded by her husband PW-2/Rajesh.
12.5 PW-6 Sh. Saurabh Sharma is tuition teacher of the deceased.
He deposed that he gave tuition to the deceased and that on the fateful day, he had gone to her house and while returning from there, he had met the accused on the way. He was also present in the TSR in which deceased was taken to hospital and deposed that the deceased gave statement before her father which was recorded by him.
12.6 PW-20 is Sh. Akhil kumar, the then SDM Kotwali, who recorded the statement of the deceased.
13. DOCTORS 13.1 PW-3 is Dr. Shivam, who examined the deceased vide MLC Ex. PW-3/A. 13.2 PW-11 is Dr. Varsha, who proved the death summary report of the deceased as Ex. PW-11/A. 13.3 PW-12 is Dr. Kapil, who deposed about MLC Ex. PW-3/A. 13.4 PW26 is Dr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, he proved the registration slip/ emergency treatment card of the accused as Ex. PW26/A and his MLC as Ex. PW26/B, endorsement of the concerned Doctor as Ex. PW26/C SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 5 of 34
14. OFFICIAL WITNESSES WHO PLAYED IMPORTANT ROLE IN SMOOTH INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE 14.1 PW-9 is Shailender Yadav, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He proved the copy of his report as Ex. PW-9/B. 14.2 PW-10 is Inspector Rajnish Kumar, who filed the supplementary chargesheet on receipt of FSL report. 14.3 PW-13 is HC Sunil who deposed about getting the postmortem of the deceased and handing over her body to her father.
14.4 PW-16 is retired Inspector Manohar Lal, who prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW-16/A. 14.5 PW-17 is ASI Narender Rana, who conveyed the information about the deceased brought to hospital in burnt condition, to the PS Sarai Rohilla.
14.6 PW-18 is HC Manoj Kumar, who deposed that on 18.02.2018, SDM came to the hospital and recorded the staetment of deceased, while she was fit for giving the statement. 14.7 PW-19 is HC Rahish Kumar, who deposited case property, in sealed parcel along with seal to FSL, Rohini. 14.8 PW-23 is HC Maheenpal who deposed about depositing exhibits in sealed condition to FSL Rohini.
14.9 PW-24 is HC Ram Nazar, MHC(M), PS Sarai Rohilla with whom the case property were deposited and subsequently sent SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 6 of 34 to FSL Rohini for their examination.
15. POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATION 15.1 PW-8 is HC Sudhir, who along with ASI Raj Kumar reached at LNJP Hospital on receipt of call regarding a burnt child brought there by her father. He deposed that thereafter, they went to the spot where the crime team was called and forensic evidence was collected. He also deposed about arrest of the accused, subsequently.
15.2 PW-14 is Inspector Mohinder Singh, who deposed about the initial investigation conducted by him.
15.3 PW-15 is HC Satyaveer, who joined the investigation with other police officials.
15.4 PW-21 is Inspector Surender Kumar, who was In-Charge of Mobile Crime Team and reached the spot after receiving call from control Room and carried out necessary investigation. 15.5 PW-22 is HC Ajay Sharma, a member of Mobile Crime Team who joined PW-21/HC Surender Kumar in the investigation. 15.6 PW-25 is SI Raj Kumar. He along with Ct. Sudhir had gone to LNJP Hospital on receiving call regarding deceased brought at LNJP Hospital in burnt condition. He also recorded the statement of deceased. He deposed about the subsequent report taken during investigation and also regarding the arrest of the accused.
16. PE was closed vide order dated 22.01.2025 and statement of the SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 7 of 34 accused u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that he had gone to the hospital to see the injured Ms. Sanchi on 17.02.2018 and he was arrested from there due to property dispute between Panna Lal and father of the deceased. He chose to lead defence evidence but no DW was examined by him despite opportunity. It was stated by him in his statement recorded on 29.04.2025, that he does not want to lead DE and as such, DE was closed.
17. Subsequently, Ld. Addl. PP for the State moved an application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C for recalling the PW-15 HC Satyavir, Dr. Devender, CMO, Lok Nayak Hospital and Dr. Vishal for proving the OPD card and MLC of the accused. Notice was given to Ld. Defence counsel and reply to the application was filed by him. After hearing arguments, the application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C was allowed and subsequently, PW-15 HC Satyavir Singh and PW-26 Debendra Sahoo were examined, cross-examined and discharged.
18. After that, the statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C of the accused qua the additional evidence led by the prosecution was recorded. He did not avail the opportunity of leading defence evidence.
19. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
20. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case in so much so that all the witnesses have supported the case prosecution in all material particulars. It was submitted that in view of the same , the Dying Declarations of the SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 8 of 34 deceased and corroborative evidence of the police officials, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was prayed that the accused be convicted.
21. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had argued that the testimonies of PWs are full of inconsistency and infirmities, the benefit of which must go to the accused. It was submitted that the police officials are interested witnesses and their testimonies cannot be relied upon. It was submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. It was argued that PW-1/Sh. Panna did not support the case of the prosecution. It was argued that PW-2 Sh. Rajesh in his cross-examination, stated that he did not see as to who extinguish the fire whereas in his examination-in-chief, he stated that it was he who poured the water to extinguish the fire. It shows that he has contradicted himself. It was argued that as per PW-4 Ms. Gudiya, she was neither present at the time of incident nor at the time of going to the hospital. It was argued that PW-16 retired Inspector Manohar Lal did not join the public persons for preparing the site plan. It was argued that other PWs neither deposed against the accused nor proved anything against him. It was argued that the accused and deceased were related and there was no question of marriage between them. It was argued that no videography was done at the time of recording the statement of witness/deceased in the hospital which vitiated the same. It was argued that no public witness joined at the time of arresting the accused. While relying upon the following judgments, it was prayed that in view of the SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 9 of 34 unreliable testimonies recorded during evidence, the accused be acquitted of the charges framed against him:-
a. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Kishan Lal, Crl. L. P 393/2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
b. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sachin, Crl. L. P 556/2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
c. Deny Bora Vs. State of Assam, Crl. Appeal No. 679/2013, DoD 27.08.2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
22. Considered.
23. The accused has been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Section 300 of IPC which defines Murder and is punishable u/s 302 IPC ,is reproduced as under:-
"S. 300 Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or (Secondly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
(Thirdly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-- (Fourthly)-- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid".
24. At the outset it is observed that neither there is any eye witness of the incident nor any CCtv footage that may reveal as to by whom the Complainant/Ms.Sanchi who succumbed to her injuries later, was set on fire. After making her statements, said Ms.Sanchi, as mentioned above, died of her injuries and as such her testimony could SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 10 of 34 not be recorded during trial.
25. The prosecution has rested its case on the such statements of the Complainant, made by her, just before her death i.e. Dying Declarations.
26. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which relates to the statements, written or verbal of relevant fact made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found, in other words, dying declaration is reproduced hereinafter:
"32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.
32. Statements, written or verbal, or relevant facts, made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose atttendance 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."
27. The basic premise in respect of dying declaration found in the maxim "nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" i.e. man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.
28. A catena of judgments have been passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on the aspects of Dying Declarations , thereby settling the law .
29. The landmark judgment on this aspect is The Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swamy v. Emperor explained the phrase SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 11 of 34 "circumstances of the transaction" as under:-
"The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction : general expressions indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to the occasion of the death will not be admissible. But statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, or that he had been invited by such person to meet him would each of them be circumstances of the transaction, and would be so whether the person was unknown, or was not the person accused. Such a statement might indeed be exculpatory of the person accused. 'Circumstances of the transaction' is a phrase no doubt that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad as the analogous use in 'circumstantial evidence' which includes evidence of all relevant facts. It is on the other hand narrower than 'res gestae'. Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence : though, as for instance, in a case of prolonged poisoning they may be related to dates at a considerable distance from the date of the actual fatal dose. It will be observed that 'the circumstances' are of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant. It is not necessary that there should be a known transaction other than that the death of the declarant has ultimately been caused, for the condition of the admissibility of the evidence is that 'the cause of (the declarant's) death comes into question'."
30. In case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1984(4) SCC 116 principles in respect of the application of section 32 have been noted as under: -
"21. ...
Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death. In this respect, as indicated above, the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the peculiar conditions of our society and the diverse nature and character of our people, has thought it necessary to widen the sphere of Section 32 to avoid injustice. The test of proximity cannot be too literally construed and practically reduced to a cut-and-dried formula of universal application so as to be confined in a straitjacket. Distance of time would depend or vary with the circumstances of each case. For instance, where death is a logical culmination of a continuous drama long in process and is, as it were, a finale of the story, the statement regarding each step directly connected with the end of the drama would be admissible because the entire statement would have to be read as an organic whole and not torn from the context. Sometimes statements relevant to or furnishing an immediate motive may also be admissible as being a part of the transaction of death. It is manifest that all these statements come to light only after the death of the deceased who speaks from death. For instance, where the death takes place within a very short time of the marriage or the distance of time is not spread over more than 3-4 months the statement may be admissible under Section 32.
The second part of clause (1) of Section 32 is yet another exception to the SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 12 of 34 rule that in criminal law the evidence of a person who was not being subjected to or given an opportunity of being cross-examined by the accused, would be valueless because the place of cross- examination is taken by the solemnity and sanctity of oath for the simple reason that a person on the verge of death is not likely to make a false statement unless there is strong evidence to show that the statement was secured either by prompting or tutoring.
It may be important to note that Section 32 does not speak of homicide alone but includes suicide also, hence all the circumstances which may be relevant to prove a case of homicide would be equally relevant to prove a case of suicide.
Where the main evidence consists of statements and letters written by the deceased which are directly connected with or related to her death and which reveal a tell-tale story, the said statement would clearly fall within the four corners of Section 32 and, therefore, admissible. The distance of time alone in such cases would not make the statement irrelevant."
31. The following principles may be culled out from various Judicial pronouncements on the law of DYING DECLARATIONS.
31.1 If a dying declaration inspires confidence of the court it can, even sans corroboration, form the sole basis of conviction. I am fortified by judicial pronouncements made in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22 and Jayamma v. State of Karnataka 2021 (6) SCC 213. 31.2 If the Court intends to rely upon the dying declaration, it must fully satisfy the confidence of the court for the reason that the person who made such a statement is no longer available for cross-examination or clarification e t c the statement of deceased was not a result of tutoring, prompting or his imagination. Reference can be made to Manjunath and Ors v State of Karnataka 2023 INSC
978. 31.3 The deceased being in a fit State of mind, alongside the ability to SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 13 of 34 recollect the situation and the state of affairs at that point in time in relation to the incident, to the satisfaction of the court , is a pre requisite to act upon such declarations/statements. The same has to be determined from the evidence available on record. Reference can be made to Shama v. State of Haryana 2017 (11)SCC535. 31.4 Corroborative evidence is required in case of doubts regarding the correctness or genuineness of the statement. Reference can be made to Manjunath and Ors v State of Karnataka (Supra) 31.5 In case of multiple statements of the deceased, it is not the plurality but the reliability of such declaration that determines its evidentiary value. Reference can be made to Manjunath and Ors v State of Karnataka (Supra).
31.6 For a statement to be termed a "dying declaration", and thereby be admissible under Section 32 of IEA, the circumstances discussed/disclosed therein "must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence".
32. Now the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts in hand.
STATEMENTS OF THE DECEASED
33. The deceased/victim made multiple statements at various stages :-
33.1 MADE TO HER FATHER WHILE BEING TAKEN TO HOSPITAL IN TSR The said Conversation which has been produced during trial in the form of a recorded video , is reproduced herein after :PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 14 of 34
The conversation starts with "Bol Beta .AB tu Dubara repeat kar'. It shows that the deceased had told the same before also and his father PW-2/Sh.Rajesh , acting in a prudent manner , SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 15 of 34 recorded the same in his mobile.
The factum of making her such statement apart from PW-2/Sh. Rajesh was affirmed by PW-4/Ms. Gudiya and PW-6/Sh. Saurabh Sharma.
PW-4/Ms.Gudiya, resident of Jhuggi No. A-314, RPF Line, Daya Basti, Delhi, neighbour of the deceased stated that on 17.02.2018 at about 12:00 noon, she heard screams and after coming out of her house, saw the deceased getting burnt. She deposed that she arranged a TSR from main road in which deceased Sanchi was taken to hospital by her parents and she also accompanied them. She deposed that deceased Sanchi insisted on saying that she was burnt by the accused Ashish for the reasons that he wanted to marry her and she was not willing. In her cross-examination, she deposed that there were five persons including driver of TSR and Saurabh while they went to the hospital. She deposed that there was noise on the road but voice of Sanchi could be heard. She denied the suggestion that she did not hear the conversation between Sanchi and her father and that deceased Sanchi did not disclose the name of assailant in her presence, to her father.
PW-6 Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Tuition Teacher of the deceased deposed that he had accompanied the parents of the deceased while the deceased was taken to the hospital in TSR. He deposed that she gave statement before his father which was recorded by him. He deposed that he could hear the traffic SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 16 of 34 sound while travelling by the TSR but could hear Sanchi speaking that the accused wanted to marry her but she was not willing and hence, he had done the act with her. He also volunteer to say that one more lady of the same area accompanied them in TSR.
Both these witnesses supported the version of PW-2/SH Rajesh regarding recording of the statement of deceased Ms. Sanchi while she was taken to hospital in TSR.
The said statement which was recorded by her father PW-2 Sh. Rajesh in his mobile phone was handed over to the police by him on 12.05.2018 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A. During recording of statement of PW-2/Sh. Rajesh, it was observed by the Court that in the said Video clip, the deceased Sanchi was making statement put to her by her father i.e. PW-2/Sh. Rajesh. It was observed that the face of the deceased Sanchi is clearly visible in the said video clip with burn injury. During the trial, the 'Memory Card' from which the CD was prepared, was not found on record and an application was moved by Ld. Addl. PP for the State for leading secondary evidence .The same was allowed vide order dated 25.09.2023. The said order was never challenged and as such attained finality. The said video CD was played in the Court and video clip was proved as Ex.P-1.The Certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act ws proved as Ex.PW-2/B. As per the Court observation, the face of deceased Sanchi was SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 17 of 34 clearly visible in the said Video clip with burn injury. The authenticity of the said video clip was never under challenge. The presence of PW2/ Rajesh, PW4 Ms. Gudiya, PW5/ Ms. Saroj Devi and PW6 Sh. Saurabh in the said TSR in which the deceased/ Ms. Sanchi was taken to the hospital has been proved by the prosecution. All these witnesses have corroborated their presence. PW6 Sh. Saurabh and PW4 Ms. Gudiya are independent witnesses and no motive has been cited that they intended to implicate the accused or for what purpose they have sided with the parents of the deceased has been argued before the court. All these witnesses have given coherent versions about recording of the statement of the deceased Ms. Sanchi in the said TSR. They even corroborate each other as per the manner in which the deceased/ Ms. Sanchi was taken to the hospital. It has been deposed that the deceased was first taken to Hindu Rao Hospital and since no burn ward was there, they went to LNJP Hospital. Just because the said TSR driver has not been made the witness, the testimonies of the examined witness cannot be thrown away in their entirety or looked upon with suspicion. There is no dearth of witnesses to be examined. It is the quality and not the quantity that matters. The testimony of the witnesses regarding hearing the statement/ declaration of the deceased Ms. Sanchi is worth considering. Moreso, when the same is corroborated by evidence in the form of video/ audio recording.
SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 18 of 34 33.2 COMPLAINT EX. PW-25/A, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE FIR WAS RECORDED.
SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 19 of 34 PW-25 IO SI Raj Kumar deposed that he recorded said statement of the deceased/Sanchi in the presence of concerned doctor and her family members. He identified his signatures at point A over the same. In his cross-examination, he stated the time of recording the statement of deceased Sanchi to be from 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM which is corroborated by testimony of PW-3 Dr. Shivam, who deposed that he certified the deceased/Sanchi to be fit for giving the statement at about 4:00 PM at the request of IO. No question regarding the manner of recording the statement, ascertainment of fitness of the deceased Sanchi to give the statement etc were put to the IO. Only because, he could not remember the name of doctors, in whose presence, the statement was recorded, is not sufficient to disbelieve him.
As per PW-1 Sh. Panna Lal, the statement of the deceased Sanchi was not recorded in his presence and he had appended her signature on statement on asking of police. He also was not consistent in telling the date and time of the incident in so much so that he deposed the date of incident to be 18.02.2018 instead of 17.02.2018 and the time of receiving call to be as early as 11:30 AM. The same can be understood to be for the reasons that the accused is closely related to him, being son of his brother-in-law. Nonetheless, neither he had stated nor any question were put to him in his cross-examination, regarding authenticity of his signatures over complaint Ex. PW-25/A. He SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 20 of 34 did not depose that he was made to sign on any blank document. It is his specific statement that he appended his signature on statement of deceased Sanchi. It is also not put to him in his cross-examination, if he signed the same without going through it.
33.3 STATEMENT EX. PW-20/A RECORDED BY SDM KOTWALI.
SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 21 of 34 SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 22 of 34 The statement of the deceased Ms. Sanchi was recorded by Sh. Akhil Kumar, the then SDM Kotwali on 18.02.2018. He was examined by the prosecution as PW-20. He proved the said statement as Ex. PW-20/A. He deposed that the statement was read over to the patient, who after satisfied herself, put her right thumb impression of hand and chicks at point B and C on the statement Ex. PW-20/A. The said statement bears the endorsement to this effect at point C. Except giving formal suggestion that he was never called at LNJP Hospital or that deceased Sanchi was neither conscious and not fit for giving statement, nothing concrete in his favour could be extracted by Ld. Defence Counsel. Just because, witness could not be remembered as to the help of whom, he got the thumb impression of Ms. Sanchi, or that he did not obtain the signature of the nurse on the statement of the deceased/Sanchi the same by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve his testimony.
33.4 STATEMENT TO HER MOTHER PW-5 Smt. Saroj Devi deposed that on hearing noise, she saw that a fire was lit in the street and her husband was throwing water on that burning object which she later on found to be her daughter. She deposed that by the time, she reached her, the fire had been extinguished and deceased Sanchi had reached the door of the jhuggi. She deposed that on being asked as to at what happened, she replied that accused Ashish had set her on fire. Her Statement that she saw that a fire was lit in the street SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 23 of 34 was corroborated by the deceased/Ms.Sanchi in her Statement Ex.PW-20/A, before the SDM that she was running in the street while burning.
33.5 ENDORSEMENT ON MLC Ex. PW-3/A Apart from aforementioned statements, the MLC Ex. PW-3/A of the deceased/Ms.Sanchi, also reflects the alleged history of burn as being done by one person named Ashish, patient distant uncle. Same is stated to have been told by the patient i.e. deceased Sanchi herself. The said MLC was prepared at 1:31 PM on 17.02.2018.
All the above four statements are consistent and coherent and indicating only one aspect that the deceased was set on fire by the accused Ashish. No contradictions or inconsistencies could be found. In all the aforementioned statements, it has been unequivocally stated by the deceased (before her death) that she was burnt by the accused Ashish after slapping her, by using kerosene oil, for the reasons that he had seen her tuition teacher, Saurabh who had come to return her book.
WHETHER DECEASED WAS FIT AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE STATEMENTS
34. There is nothing on record that the deceased Ms. Sanchi was unfit for making the statement at any time before the MLC Ex. PW-3/A was prepared. Only a suggestion was given to PW-2 Sh. Rajesh that SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 24 of 34 deceased Ms. Sanchi was unconscious when she was removed from the spot to the hospital. No such suggestion were given to any of other occupants of the TSR i.e. PW-4 Ms. Gudiya, PW-5 Ms. Saroj Devi and PW-6 Sh. Saurabh Sharma. No doctor has been cross- examined by the defence on the aspect if the deceased/Ms. Sanchi could not have been in a fit state just after receiving such kind of injuries.
35. PW-3 Dr. Shivam deposed that at 4:00 PM on 17.02.2018, at the request of the IO, he examined the patient Sanchi and at that time, she was fit to give her statement, for which he made endorsement on the MLC Ex. PW-3/A. His signatures to this effect is also found at point B and C on complaint Ex. PW25/A. The said MLC reflects as under:-
O/E Conscious/oriented PR90 BPM CES-S1 S2 heard R/S-B/L A/E + No cross-examination of this witness was conducted by the defence despite opportunity being given.
36. Further an endorsement of Dr. Mahender from point B to B on Ex. PW-20/A to the effect that the patient was fit for giving statement was also found mentioned in the statement recorded by SDM Kotwali, Ex. PW-20/A. The said statement was also certified by the SDM, who have been recorded before him and that the said statement, after recording has been read over to the witness, who after satisfying herself has put her right thumb impression of her SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 25 of 34 hand and feet before him. In his cross-examination, PW-20 Sh. Akhil Kumar, the then SDM Kotwali deposed that at the time of recording the statement of deceased Sanchi, she was conscious.
37. Thus , the fitness of the deceased/Ms.Sanchi before her statements were recorded at different stages has been established.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE
38. As per the IO, Match boxes and sticks, one green coloured plastic bottle and one yellow coloured cloth soaked and smelling of kerosene were seized by him, as per the instructions of Inspector Surender Kumar (PW-21), Incharge, mobile crime team, North District, who visited the crime scene on 17.02.2018 on being informed at about 6:45 PM, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/B.
39. As per forensic examination report Ex. PW-9/A, Exhibit-'1' i.e. green coloured plastic bottle having black coloured lid containing colorless liquid (approximately 5 ml in volume) was found containing kerosene. Further, Exhibit- '2' i.e. two match boxes of brand 'Ship Superior' and one match box of brand 'Mangal Deep' with burnt and unburnt matches and Exhibit-'3' i.e. yellow coloured moist ladies suites with printed design of front side were found containing residue of kerosene.
40. Presence of Kerosene Oil in the house for the purpose of killing insects, was admitted by PW-1/Sh.Panna Lal, in his cross examination by Ld..Addl. PP for the State.
SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 26 of 34 CAUSE OF THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED
41. The postmortem report prepared by Dr. Kishore Kumar Thakur was admitted as genuine by the accused in his statement u/s 294 of Cr.P.C. The cause of death as per the postmortem report is given as under:-
"Cause of death of Septicemia as result of antemortem infected flame burn involving about ninty five percentage of total body surface area"
42. As per postmortem examination report dated 24.02.2018 Ex. PX-1, the deceased Sanchi expired on 24.02.2018 at 8:43 AM during treatment, after having been admitted with history of burn on 17.02.2018 at 1:31 PM vide MLC No. 111638280 (Ex. PW-3/A).
CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
43. The accused Ashish Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/A. As per the same, he was arrested on 18.02.2018, though, time of arrest is not found mentioned there. Subsequent to his arrest, he was taken to Lok Nayak Hospital for his medical examination. He was examined vide casualty card Ex. PW-26/A and MLC Ex. PW-26/B was also prepared. As per the statement of Dr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, who was examined as PW-26, the accused was found having superficial burn injury of 1% on right hand, right thumb and right index finger and was referred to Burn and Plastic Surgery Department for further management and treatment. Endorsements to this effect are found in MLC Ex. PW-26/B and casualty card Ex. PW-26/A. The accused was advised to take antibiotic, analgesic and SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 27 of 34 antacid for his treatment apart from given sterile dressing for the said injury. In his cross-examination, he was asked if the nature of burn injury that were received by the accused could be possible by holding of hot kettle/pot of tea to which the answer was in negative. However, the said witness Dr. Debendra Sahoo went on to say that as per endorsement on Ex. PW-26/C, the said injury is possible only if a person has contact with flame. Infact , Ld.Defence Counsel did dispute the burn injuries on the fingers of the accuse but only tried to reason out the cause thereof without any logical reasoning. It has not been argued as to why the acused had to hold hot kettle/pot of tea and when.
44. As such, the accused was having burn injuries on his hands and the only plausible reason for the same can be that the same occurred while committing the crime i.e. setting of the deceased Ms. Sanchi on fire using kerosene oil.
MOTIVE
45. What can be inferred from the closer scrutiny of the testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses is that the accused had a liking towards the deceased and did not like her closeness with her tuition teacher I.e PW-6/Saurabh. Further that presence of said Saurabh around the house of the deceased was witnessed by the accused which infuriated him and the ghastly act was committed by him. The relevant parts of the testimonies are mentioned hereinafter. 45.1 In the conversation that was recorded by PW-2 Sh. Rajesh while the deceased Sanchi was being taken away in the hospital SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 28 of 34 by auto rickshaw, she stated that " Ashish ne mujhe jalaya hai, pahle usne mujhe mara phir mujhe jalaya, maine ghar walon ko nahi bataya kyunki wo mujhe dant tey hai, wo mujhe se shadi karna chahata tha, mai usse Shadi karna nahi chahti, wo mujhe bahut marta hai, bahut torture karta hai"
45.2 In her statement before the SDM Ex. PW-20/A also, she deposed that the accused used to like her and intended to marry her.
45.3 As per complaint Ex. PW-25/A on the basis of which, FIR was registered, it is mentioned that the accused/applicant got angry over the complainant/deceased Sanchi, on seeing PW-6 Sh. Saurabh ( Tuition Teacher of deceased Sanchi) with her, who had come there to return her books. It is specifically stated that the accused used to doubt her.
45.4 PW-5/Smt.Saroj ,mother of the deceased Sanchi narrated that accused Ashish set on her fire as he wanted to marry her, for which she was not agreeable.
46. However, PW-1 Sh. Panna Lal did not support the said theory .In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused he deposed that there was no affair between the accused and deceased Sanchi and that that he never heard that the accused wanted to get married with deceased Sanchi, whom, he used to treat as his daughter.
47. Thus, in view of the above, it is established that the accused intended to marry deceased Sanchi who showed no inclination. Though, the accused and the deceased Sanchi were stated to be related to each other as uncle and niece, but they were of similar ages, being 21 and 17 respectively. They were also residing in the SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 29 of 34 said house and as such, attraction of the accused towards the deceased Sanchi may not be altogether ignored. As such, the said factor stands proved as a motive for committing the act by the accused.
TIME LINE
48. As per PW-6 Sh. Saurabh Sharma, who was giving tuition to deceased Sanchi, on 17.02.2018, Sanchi had come to his house and left at about 11:00 AM after studying. Further that a book of Sanchi was left at his house, which he returned to at her house at about 11:30 AM and on his way back, he met the accused. As per PW-2 Sh. Rajesh, he heard the noise of screaming of deceased Sanchi at about 12:00 Noon to 12:30 PM on 17.08.2018.
49. MLC Ex. PW-3/A of the deceased Sanchi was prepared on 17.02.2018 at 1:31 PM.
50. DD No. 32 A was received on 17.08.2018 at 1:40 PM from SI Narender Rana, who was posted at LNJP Hospital, regarding admission of the Sanchi, in burnt condition.
51. As per PW-3 Dr. Shivam, he examined the deceased Sanchi, who had already admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 111368208 Ex. PW-3/A at about 4:00 PM.
52. Thus, the chain of events are consistent with the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.
DEFENSES/ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
53. The following defences have been taken on behalf of the accused , SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 30 of 34 while cross-examination of PWs was conducted by Ld. Defence counsel and in the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C.
a. That PW-2 Sh. Rajesh, father of the deceased was having intimacy with Ms. Gudiya and that deceased Ms.Sanchi did not like the same and as such, she committed suicide.
b. That the accused Ashish saw Sanchi and Saurabh in compromising position and as such, she committed suicide. c. That there was property dispute between PW-1/Panna Lal and PW-2 Sh. Rajesh, father of the deceased.
54. Different defences rather say all possible defences were taken by the Ld.Counsel for the accused at different stages. However, apart from giving bald suggestions to the witnesses, no positive evidence in support of his contentions was brought on record by the accused. It is worth noting that all theses three defences are of entirely different in nature and have no relation with each other . It seems that the same were taken for the sake of it. Infact PW-1/Sh.Panna Lal who had tried to side with the accused also denied the suggestions that deceased Sanchi had tried to suicide for burning herself. PW-2/Sh.Rajesh as well denied the suggestion that the deceased Sanchi set herself on fire and committed suicide. He also denied the suggestion that he had intimacy with Ms. Gudiya which was not liked by the deceased and as such, she could suicide. He denied the suggestion that accused Ashish had seen Sanchi and Saurabh in compromising position and as such she set herself on fire.
55. In cross-examination of PW-5/Smt.Saroj, questions were put to her to the extent that her husband i.e. PW-2 Rajesh was having relationship with PW-4 Ms. Gudiya and deceased Sanchi was SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 31 of 34 unhappy over the same and she stated that since there was no relation between Rajesh and Gudiy, there was no question of Sanchi being unhappy with the same.
56. Thus none of the defences taken by the accused are plausible/proved.
57. Further, Ld. Defence counsel has pointed out certain discrepancies in the statement of witnesses as to who extinguish the fire, non joining of public witnesses and not video graphing the recording of the statement of deceased Sanchi in hospital.
58. Ld. defence counsel has argued that as per PW-4 Ms. Gudiya she was neither present at the time of present nor at the time of going to the hospital. However, no such statement of the above said witness was found on record. She had specifically deposed that she came out of his house on hearing noise of screaming and saw the deceased Sanchi getting burnt. Further, she had denied the suggestion given to her that she was not present in the TSR with Sanchi.
59. The Court also could not find anything in the cross-examination of PW-2/Sh. Rajesh as he did not see as to who extinguished the fire of the deceased Ms. Sanchi.
60. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the discrepancies or minor inconsistently which does not go to the root of the matter, should not be given undue weightage. A witness cannot be expected to have a photographic memory so as to recall the every single event with precision. Human memory is bound to fade with time. The question, as to how, the ocular testimony of the witnesses has to be SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 32 of 34 appreciated by a court has been discussed in detail in the judgment titled as Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Haryana cited as 2022 Live Law (SC) 596.
61. Lastly, Ld. Counsel for the accused has not been able to place any judicial pronouncement before the Court, as per which only when the recording of statement of the deceased is videographed, then only it can be relied upon.
62. Thus none of the defences taken by the accused are plausible/proved.
CONCLUSION
63. In view of the above observation and discussions, in view of the judgment relied upon, it is established that the statements made by the deceased/Ms. Sanchi before she succumbed to her injury were made by her in her fit state of mind. All the statements are found to be consistent with each other, without any variation to the extent that any doubt has to be raised regarding their correctness. The said statements, one of which has also been recorded by a Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and another has been recorded live, have not been proved to have been made due to any external factors, be it tutoring or as a result imagination. The forensic evidence that was collected from the place of incident and the MLC of the accused further lends undenying corroboration to the testimonies of the witnesses, who have corroborated to each other on all material aspects.
64. To summarize, on the basis of material available on record in SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 33 of 34 particular the Dying Declarations of the deceased/Sanchi, it is proved that the accused Ashish set of deceased/Ms. Sanchi on fire after pouring kerosene oil upon her. All the ingredients constituting offence u/s 300 IPC punishable u/s 302 IPC are satisfied.
65. As such, the accused Ashish is held guilty of committing offence of murder as punishable u/s 302 IPC and accordingly stands convicted.
66. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convict as free of cost.Digitally signed by
Announced in the open court BHUPINDER BHUPINDER SINGH (Judgment contains 34 pages) SINGH Date: 2025.09.26 17:13:53 +0530 (Bhupinder Singh) ASJ-05, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 26.09.2025 SC no. 377/2018 State Vs. Ashish Kumar FIR No. 63/2018 PS: Sarai Rohilla Page No. 34 of 34