Allahabad High Court
Nathu And Another vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82406-DB Reserved on 03.04.2025 Delivered on 17.05.2025 In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2256 of 1983 Appellant :- Nathu And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- G.C. Saxena,Nanhe Lal Tripathi,Swayamanand Sisodiya Counsel for Respondent :- D.G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
(Per: Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
1. Heard Shri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the sole surviving Appellant-Nathu as well as Shri Rahul Asthana, learned AGA for the State respondents.
2. The above noted appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1983, wherein, the Trial Court has convicted accused-appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
3. The Trial Court's record is received and paper book is ready. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.
4. Prosecution story is that Nathoo, accused, was a resident of Mohalla Nadipura, P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur. He lived with his parents, father Mool Chand and mother Smt. Bhuri. He was married to one Guddi (deceased), the victim of the case. Allegedly, on 18.02.1983, Smt. Bhuri accused Guddi of stealing face powder. As a result of this accusation, Guddi was beaten by her husband at about 8:00 P.M. in the presence of Ramesh, Suresh, Mool Chand, Santosh, Nandebu, Komal, and other neighbours. She was further tortured during the night, and on the following morning, the two accused practically burnt her to death. Smt. Bhuri sprinkled kerosene oil on Guddi, while Nathoo held her. Nathoo then set the fire, causing Guddi to sustain serious burn injuries. Subsequently, she was taken to the hospital, where her statement was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.). Despite treatment, she died at 05:30 P.M. on 19.02.1983, in the hospital.
5. The incident of setting fire occurred at about 8:00 A.M. on 19.02.1983. The deceased was admitted to the district hospital, Lalitpur at 9:10 A.M. on the same day, and as per the bed head ticket of the hospital, she was in conscious condition.
6. The doctor called Magistrate for recording the statement (Dying Declaration) of the deceased. Sub Divisional Magistrate reached to the hospital at about 10:30 A.M. and recorded the Dying Declaration of the deceased (Guddi) on 19.02.1983. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged on the basis of the Dying Declaration at 12:10 (Noon) on 19.02.1983, as Case Crime No. 51 of 1983, under Section 307 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur.
7. The deceased Guddi died on 19.02.1983 at 5:30 P.M. Consequently, the First Information Report was converted to Section 302 of I.P.C. The bed head ticket indicates that the deceased was admitted on 19.02.1983 at 9:10 A.M in the morning, remained conscious until 2:20 P.M., became unconscious after 2.20 P.M., and she died at 5:30 P.M. while dying declaration was recorded at 9.30 A.M.
8. On the bed head ticket the doctor has mentioned that the victim was admitted as burn injury case. The bed head ticket is reproduced herein under:
"Ewd I 15 ''k¸;k i=d 53 vlfud vLirky Jfed la[;k& 494 jksx uke xqMMh W/o Naththoo, aged about 20 yrs at 9.10 a.m. irk naddi mohalla d{k L.T.P. tkfr ifj.kke &expired on 19.02.83 at 5.30 p.m. izos'k fnuakd 19-02-83
9.10 a.m. mueqfDr fnukad& "Alleged to have sustained burn injuries RTI attested Injury noted in accidental register M/O -A tiny black mole on Rt. foot on middle aspect.
Dying declaration to be recorded call to be sent to SDM Police to be informed Show the case to Dr. R.K. Agarwal surgeon urgently Inj. Normal saline II O stats Inj. Dextrose solution 1 O stats Inj. C.P. 10 lakh 6 hourly Inj. ATS 1500 IU Inj. Analgin 2 ml iv stat inform to surgeon Sd. Dr. R.S. Agrawal B/B Ganesh S/o Halke Chaudhary 19/02/1983 general condition - very poor Pulse- not palpable bp not recordable respiratory gasping Dehydration- present Approximately 75% burn Smell of kerosene oil present 19.02.1983 2.20 p.m. G.C. V.V. taul pulse - not perceptible BP- not recordable Body cold and calmy Resp- Gasping Dehydration+ unconscious Rx 5% Dextrose 5 unit 8% Dextrose saline 3 unit Hemocele 2 bottle blood 2 bottle Inj. C.P. 10 lakh 6 hourly Inj. Fortwin one ample IV Inj Decadron one phial IV 6 hourly Inj. Coramine one ample IV 6 hourly Inj. Deriphyllin 1 ample IV 6 hourly Inj. Redoxon 500 Mg. IV Inj. ATS 1500 Iu Inj. Morphine one ample Refer by DD. RECORDING .......
........
IV fluids to be continued Oxygen inhalation Inj. Oxygen decadron Inj. Coramine one ample Inj. Morphine one ample 19.02.83 494 Guddi W/o Nathu 5.20 p.m. 19.02.1983 G.C. grave pulse - not perceptible BP- not perceptible Gasping Body.......
Resp- Gasping unconscious Pupil dilated 53dk vlfud vLirky Jfed la[;k& 494 Rx.
Oxygen inhalation Inj. Miconis Inj. Coramine one ample Inj. Morphine one ample 5.30 p.m. 19.02.1983 Heard and Lungs stopped Pupil dilated Conjunctival Reflex lot Expired on 19.02.83 at 5.30 p.m. Police informed
9. The deceased was admitted to the district hospital on 19.02.1983, at 9:10 A.M. Her treatment was started by Dr. R.S. Agrawal (P.W.-5). It is mentioned in the medical register of the Hospital that she had been admitted as a case of alleged burn injury. It is also mentioned on the same document that the doctor requested the police to call the SDM for recording the dying declaration of the injured and also mentioned that the smell of kerosene oil was present on her body and noted approximately 75% burns. When the SDM recorded the dying declaration at 10:30 A.M., she was conscious and the doctor's certificate that she was in a fit condition to give her statement, and she was declared unconscious at 02:20 P.M. Thus, during the recording of the dying declaration, she was of sound mind to give her statement. Thereafter, based on the dying declaration, the first information report was lodged at the police station.
10. The First Information Report was lodged on the basis of the Dying Declaration recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate called by the Doctor of District Hospital through police and the doctor had also given certificate stating that the deceased/ patient was fit to give her statement. The dying declaration is reproduced herein under:
"मरणासन्न अवस्था में लिया गया बयान दिनांक 19.2.83 समय 10.30Am गुड्डी पत्नी नाथू नदीपुरा ललितपुर उम्र लगभग 20वर्ष ने मरणासन्न अवस्था मे बयान किया कि मेरे पति नाथू ने मुझे बहुत मारा रात भर । मेरी सास भूरी पत्नी मूलचन्द ने मेरे पति से कहा कि मैने मुख पर लगाने वाला पाउडर चुरा लिया है। इसी बात को लेकर मेरे पति ने मेरी सास के सामने तथा रमेश पुत्र भागीरथ, गनेश पुत्र हल्के, कैलाश पुत्र चुन्दा, वृजरानी पत्नी भागीरथ तथा बहुत से आदमी व औरत मुहल्ले वाले मौजूद थे ने बाल पकड़ कर लातो व घूसो से मारा। उस समय रात्रि के आठ वज रहे थे। रात में भी घर के अन्दर सास के सामने मारा। उस समय मेरे घर के रमेश, सुरेश गनेश ससुर मूलचन्द तथा लड़का सन्तोष ननदेवु कोमल तथा अन्य लोग थे जो मुहल्ले के थे। रात भर मुझे सोने नही दिये व सबेरे मेरी सास ने मेरे ऊपर मिट्टी का तेल गिराया तथा मेरे पति मुझे पकड़े थे उस समय अन्य कोई वहां घर के अन्दर नही था। उस समय आज सुबह के करीब 8 वजे थे। तेल सास के गिराने के तुरन्त बाद मेरे पति ने माचिस से आग मेरे ऊपर लगा दी। जब सास तेल गिरा रही थी उस समय मै चिल्लाई कोई नही आया लेकिन जब आग पति ने लगा दी और मै चिल्लाई तब मुझे नही मालूम कि कौन कौन वहाँ आये या नही आये। मै काफी जल गई। मुझे अस्पताल मेरे घर वाले, पति, ककिया ससुर, गनेश, गुलाब अस्पताल ले आये। पाउडर चुराने की बात के अलावा अन्य कोई झगड़ा मेरे व मेरे सास व पति के साथ पहले नही हुआ।
बयान सुनकर तसदीक किया।
ह० अप० 19/2/83 SDM नि०अ०गुड्डी"
11. The investigation was moved into motion by Sri Maniram Rao, S.I. (PW-8). He reached at the place of occurrence, where the statement of Ganesh was recorded and the scene of incident was inspected. From the crime scene, earth soaked in kerosene and plain earth were collected and kept in separate boxes, thereafter, the same were sealed.
12. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) prepared panchayatnama/ inquest report (Ex.Ka-17) at 10.40 PM. He gathered the panchas, noted their opinions, then read it out and obtained their signature.
13. He prepared the site plan/Naksha Nazari on the indications of Ganesh and exhibited the same as Ex.Ka-16.
14. Thereafter, the I.O./PW-8 sent the deceased Guddi's body for the postmortem via constable along with other documents. He also prepared the cloths for taking challanash, photo nash, sample seal, R.I. report, CMO post martem and report MO which are written and signed by him and the same were marked as Ex. Ka.18 and Ex. Ka. 23.
15. The investigating officer/ P.W.-8 collected the earth soaked in kerosene and plain earth, placed them in separate boxes and sealed them. Thereafter the I.O. collected a two-litre empty cane with a few drops of kerosene oil and a matchbox lying nearby, and sealed these items in a cloth.
16. The I.O./P.W.-8 arrested the accused Bhuri on 20.02.1983 from her house while co-accused Nathoo had fled away and could not be found. Later on, accused Nathoo came to the police station.
17. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. R.B. Sharma (PW-2) along with Dr. A.K. Saxena on 20.2.1983 at 3.00 P.M. on the person of deceased-Guddi and the following external injuries were found:
"1- burnt 2 to 4 degree involving whole of the body except lower abdomen below umlicus, perinem, both buttocks and feet including lower 1/3rd of both legs.
2. Abrassion 2 cm x 0.8 cm on medical aspect of right foot.
There was singeing of hairs and blackening of the skin present at places''
18. Dr. R.B. Sharma (PW-2) and A.K. Saxena have opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries.
19. The I.O./P.W.-8 after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet dated 09.4.1983 under Sections 302/34 of IPC against accused-appellant implicated in the F.I.R. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and thereafter committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
20. The case was registered as S.T. No. 31 of 1983 (State vs. Nathoo and another) under Sections 302/34 IPC but the learned Sessions Judge framed charges only under Section 302/34 of IPC on 30.06.1983. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
21. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has adduced many documentary evidence, namely, dying declaration (Ex. Ka-3), F.I.R., (Ex.Ka-8), Recovery Memo of earth smelling of kerosene and plain earth (Ex.Ka-14), Recovery memo of box (kestrol) & Matchbox (Ex.Ka-15), Postmortem Report (Ex. Ka-5), Panchayatnama (Ex. Ka-17), Charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-7) Site Plan/naksa najari (Ex.Ka- 16) and has examined as many as 8 witnesses namely, PW-1, SDM, Raj Nath Ram, PW-2, Dr. R.B. Sharma; PW-3, Ganesh; PW-4, Kunji Lal; PW-5, Dr. R.S. Agrawal; PW-6,Magan, P.W.-7, S.M. Pandey, P.W.-8 Mani Ram Rao.
22. Raj Nath Ram (S.D.M.) (PW-1), who recorded the dying declaration after receiving a certificate to the effect that the deceased was in a fit condition to give her statement. The same was recorded on 19.02.1983 at 10:30 AM upon being called by the doctor of the district hospital through police. The Dying Declaration was written by him in his own handwriting and The relevant extract of his deposition is quoted below:
"19.2.83 को मै आई/सी एसडीएम ललितपुर था। उस दिन मैंने अस्पताल की सूचना पर 10:30 बजे सुबह अस्पताल पहुँचकर श्रीमती गुड्डी नत्थू नि० नदीपुरा ललितपुर का डाइंग डिक्लेरेशन अंकित किया। जिस समय ब्यान लिया उस समय डाक्टर के अलावा कोई नही था। ब्यान लेने के पहले डाक्टर आर० एस० अग्रवाल ने प्रमाण पत्र दिया था कि मरीज होश में है और ब्यान देने की स्थिति में है नोट उनके हाथ का लिखा था, मेरे सामने लिखा था उन्होंने मेरे सामने दस्तखत किया था। Ex क-2 डाला गया। जो उसने ब्यान दिया वही मैंने अंकित किया। यहाँ की लोकल थाना में ब्यान दिया था, जिसको मैंने खड़ी बोली में अंकित किया था। ब्यान उसकी लिखे जाने के बाद पढ़कर सुना दिया था। सुनने समझने के बाद उसने निशान अंगूठा लगाया। यह मेरा लिखा व दस्तखती है इक्ज क-3 है जो मैंने duplicate में तैयार किया, उसकी एक कॉपी मैंने थाने भेज दी थी। इक्ज क-2 मैंने सी० जे०एम० ललितपुर को भेज दिया था। उस पर भी औरत का निशान अंगूठा है व मेरी दस्तखती है इक्ज क-4 डाला गया। ''
23. The doctor (P.W-2) deposed that the deceased was in conscious condition to give her statement to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate also deposed that the deceased was in a fit and conscious condition to give her statement in respect of the alleged incident while the deceased died after more than 7 hours and the following external injuries were found:
"1- burnt 2 to 4 degree involving whole of the body except lower abdomen below umlicus, perinem, both buttocks and feet including lower 1/3rd of both legs.
2. Abrassion 2 cm x 0.8 cm on medical aspect of right foot.
There was singeing of hairs and blackening of the skin present at places''
24. Dr. R.B. Sharma (PW-2) and A.K. Saxena have deposed that the cause of death was shock as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries.
25. The doctor has also deposed before the court that a medical certificate was given that the deceased was in conscious condition to give her statement to the Sub Divisional Magistrate(PW-1) and PW-8 Sub Inspector Maniram Rao also deposed that the doctor (PW-5) who has given treatment to the deceased gave memo (Ex. ka-6) to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for recording her statement. The memo (Ex. ka. 6) is being reproduced herein under:
'' To The S.D.M Kotwali A case of Smt. Guddi W/o Shri Nathu Aged about 20 years R/o Nadipur Lalitpur has been admitted in emergency D.H. Ltp on 19.02.1983 at 9.20 A.M. as a case of burn.
Please do needful."
26. PW-3, Ganesh, had taken the deceased to the hospital and admitted her. The relevant extract of his deposition is as under:-
"5 माह 20 दिन की बात है। 8-सवा 8 बजे सवेरे का वक्त था। मूलचन्द्र के मकान से आवाज सुनाई दी। मैं नहीं गया। गुड्डी जली हुई पड़ी थी। मै, कोमल, गुड्डी की चारपहिए के ढेला में बैठाल कर अस्पताल ले गए थे। गुड्डी के आग लगी देखी थी तो हमने कथरी से आग बुझा दी थी। उसे अस्पताल में भरती करा दिया था।''
27. PW-4, Kunji Lal, who was the father of the deceased has deposed that Guddi had come to his house on day before the incident and had complained about being accused of stealing face powder. He persuaded Guddi to return to the her in law's house, advising her not to feel aggrieved by such minor matters. The next day, he came to know that Guddi had set herself on fire. This witness, in his cross examination, was declared hostile.
28. PW-5, Dr. R.S. Agarwal, was posted as emergency medical officer at District Hospital, Lalitpur who treated the deceased Guddi. He deposed that he admitted the injured to the Hospital and sent a memo to the SHO, Police Kotwali, to call the Magistrate for recording her statement, as she was in a fit state of mind to give her statement. The Magistrate took her dying declaration and also deposed that the injured Guddi was in a fit condition to give her statement. The relevant extract of his deposition is as under:-
'' मै दिनांक 19.2.83 को जिला अस्पताल ललितपुर में आकस्मिक चिकित्सा अधिकारी के पद पर तैनात था। उस दिन मैने श्रीमती गुड्डी पत्नि श्री नत्थू उम्र लगभग 20 साल को सुबह 9 बजकर 20 मिनट पर आकस्मिक वार्ड में भर्ती किया था। जिसका मीमो एसएचओ कोतवाली को लिखकर भेजा था, मेरा लिखा व दस्तखती है। इक्ज क 6 है। उसी दिन सुबह 10:30 बजे सुबह श्रीमती गुडडी का उसकी गम्भीर हालत को देखकर मृत्यु पूर्व ब्यान के लिए इत्तला मेजिस्टेट साहब को भेजी। वह ब्यान देने योग्य थी। उसको मैने प्रमाणित किया है। वह प्रमाण पत्र इक्ज क-1 है। मेरा लिखा व दस्तखती है। मैने यह प्रमाण पत्र गुडडी की हालत देखकर दी थी कि वह ब्यान देने योग्य है यह बात ब्यान देने के पूर्व देख ली थी। यह ब्यान मेजिस्ट्रेट साहब ने मेरी मौजूदगी में लिखा जब तक ब्यान लिखा गया गुड्डी ब्यान देने की हालत में रही। ''
29. This witness in his cross examination withstood his deposition.
30. PW-6, Magan who is brother of the deceased Guddi deposed that he reached the hospital where she was lying on the bed. When he inquired about the incident she told that her husband and mother-in-law had set the fire after sprinkling kerosene. Relevant extracts of his deposition in examination in chief is as under:
'' हम अस्पताल में वहाँ पहुँचे जहाँ गुडडी पलंग पर परी थी। गुडडी से पूछा कि बहिन कैसे जल गई तो उसने बताया कि मेरी सास व नत्थू आदमी ने मिट्टी का तेल डालकर जला दिया, रात को मेरी पिटाई भी की थी यह बताया था कि पाउडर के डिब्बा पर होकर मारा पीटा तथा सुबह जला दिया। बाद में वे मर गई। धोती का टुकड़ा अधजला इक्ज-1, बलाउस इक्ज 2, व पेटीकोट जला इक्ज-3 व लुंगी इक्ज-4 मेरी बहिन के है। 4 चूड़िया इक्ज-5 व चूड़ियों के टुकड़े इक्ज-6, ताबीज मय काले डोरा के इक्ज-7 मेरी बहिन की है। इनको पहने मैने अपनी बहिन को जब घर आई तब पहने थी अस्पताल में अधजले बलाउस वगैरह बहिन पहने थी।''
31. This witness (P.W.-6), in his cross examination, was declared hostile.
32. PW-7, Sri S.M. Pandey, SHO Lalitpur Kotwali deposed in his examination-in-chief that this case was registered in his absence on 21.02.1983. He investigated the case himself. On the same day, he received the post mortem report and took the statements of Maganlal, Kunjilal and other witnesses. On 05.02.83, he took the statement of accused and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet. (Ex. 7)
33. PW-8, S.I. Maniram Rao, stated that he was the investigating officer of the case. The relevant extracts of his examination in chief reads as under:
इस मुकदमें की तफ्तीश मैने शुरू की। ब्यान हेड मुहर्रिर शिवबरन सिंह थाना कोतवाली किया। डाक्टर आर०एस० अग्रवाल का ब्यान, ब्यान एस०डी० राव राजनाथ राम किया। फिर घटना स्थल पर गया। ब्यान गनेश लिया। मौका मुआयना किया। घटना स्थल से मिट्टी के तेल से सनी मिट्टी, तथा सादा मिट्टी ली और अलग अलग टीन के डिब्बों में रखकर सील मुहर किया, घटना स्थल के पास 2 लीटर का खाली डिब्बा जिसमें चन्द बूंद मिट्टी के तेल की मौजूद थी तथा माचिस जो पास ही में पड़ी मिली थी। एक कपड़े में सील मुहर किया। फर्दे तैयार की गवाहान को पढ़कर सुनाकर गवाह के अलामात बनाए फर्द इक्ज -क-14 व क-15 हैं तेल भरी मिट्टी स-8 -8 तथा सादा मिट्टी इक्ज-9. खाली डिब्बा इक्ज-10. माचिस इक्ज-11 चही है। घटना स्थल पर गनेश की निशादेही पर नक्शा नजरी तैयार किया, जो मेरा लिखा व दस्तखती है। खसरा दर्ज है बलिहाज मौका सही है इक्ज क-16 डाला गया। मोका मुआयना के बाद। मौके पर अन्य गवाहान के ब्यान लिये। गुडडी के मरने की सूचना प्राप्त होने पर अस्पताल आया। पंचायतनामा मृतका तैयार किया। पंचायन को इकट्ठा किया उनकी राय अंकित की फिर पढ़कर सुनाकर दस्तखत आग कराए। इक्ज क 17 है। अन्य कागजात सहित लाश को कानि० से पोस्टमार्टम को भेजा। चालान नाश, फोटोनाश, नमूना सील, रिपोर्ट आर०आई० रिपोर्ट सी०एम०ओ० पोस्टमार्टम व रिपोर्ट एम०ओ० बाबत लेने कपड़े तैयार किए मेरे लिखे व दस्तखती है। इक्ज क 18 से क-23 कमशः है। मुल्जिम भूरी को 20.2.83 को गिरफ्तार किया व मकान गिरफ्तारी बताई। मुल्जिम नत्थू भागा हुआ था नही मिल सका। मुल्जिमान व माल के थाने आया। मुल्जिमान माल का दाखिला बहवाले रपट नं0 17 समय 9:40 पर मैने किया था। असल जी०डी० मेरे सामने है। मेरी लिखी व दस्तखती है जिसकी सही नकल दाखिल करता हूँ इक्ज क-24 डाला गया। इसके वाद एस०एच०ओ० कोतवाली श्री एस०एम० पान्डे के आने पर विवेचना उन्होने अपने जिम्मे ली। हरप्रसाद वार्ड ब्याव ने गुड्डी की मृत्यु की सूचना एक मीमो द्वारा दी जिसके आधार पर शिववरन सिंह ने बहवाले रपट नं० 41 समय 18:15 तारीख 19.2.83 को जिसका लेख व दस्तखत पहिचानता हूँ। उसकी नकल दाखिल करता हूँ। इक्ज क-25। तारीख 26.4.83 को 4 बंडल सर्वे मुहर हालत में सदर मालखाना कानि० रामगोपाल के द्वारा भेजे गए। जिसका हवाला रपट नं0 21 तारीख 26.4.83 को अंकित किया असल जी०डी० हेड कानि रामगोपाल की लिखी व दस्तखती है। उसकी सही नकल दाखिल करता हूँ। उसकी लिखते पढ़ते देखा है। इक्ज क-26 है। जब तक माल मेरे कब्जे में रहा सील मुहर रहा किसी को देखने या छूने का मौका नही दिया।''
34. This witness withstood his deposition made in his cross examination.
35. Thereafter, the statements of the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied all the allegations and stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case. The defence has also produced three witnesses namely Arjun Lal, DW-1, Ramesh, DW-2 and Dr. R.K. Agarwal in support of his defence.
36. Thereafter, the Trial Court vide impugned judgement convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment as mentioned above.
37. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant-Nathu, who is the husband of the deceased, himself took her wife to the hospital and at that time she was in an unconscious stage and not in a position to give any statement. Further submission is that at the time of incident, the appellant was not at home. He further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident. The father (PW-4) and brother (PW-6) of the deceased turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. It is further argued that the conviction of the appellant is against the weight of evidence on record and contrary to law. It is also submitted that the Dying Declaration is not worth believing as the deceased remained unconscious till her death. Moreover, the dying declaration was not recorded in question and answer from and the SDM who recorded the Dying Declaration had not asked any preliminary questions from the deceased so as to ascertain whether she was in a fit state of mind to make dying declaration.
38. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the Dying Declaration was recorded by the SDM after receiving the certification from the Doctor who stated that the deceased was conscious upto 2.20 p.m. and in a fit state of mind to give her statement and, therefore, the Dying Declaration is worth believing. Learned A.G.A. while drawing attention to various statements of the witnesses, submits that merely because the father (PW-4) and brother (PW-6) subsequently turned hostile, this alone is not sufficient to reverse the judgment of conviction. Attention was also drawn to the statements of Dr. R.S. Agarwal (PW-5), who had medically examined Guddi (the deceased) and described the nature of her injuries.
39. On perusal of the record and the entire evidence, it is found that the F.I.R. was registered under Section 307 of the IPC, an injury report was prepared, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded the dying declaration after receiving a certificate stating that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. The injured subsequently died; therefore, the F.I.R. was converted to Section 302 of the IPC.
40. We find that PW-4 father of the deceased and PW-6 brother of the deceased, are admittedly not eye-witnesses of the incident and were later on declared hostile. Therefore, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused-appellant rests solely on the Dying Declaration recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (PW-1) after fitness certificate from the Doctor.
41. The victim was admitted to District Hospital, Lalitpur at 9.10 AM on 19.2.1983. On the bed head ticket reproduced above, her admission was recorded as a case of burn injuries. The doctor informed the police to call the SDM of the concerned area to record the dying declaration of the injured-victim (wife of accused-appellant). The police informed the SDM, who then arrived at the Hospital and recorded the Dying Declaration at 10.30 AM on the same date. Thereafter, at 2.20 PM it was reported that she was unconscious. The doctor certificate stating that she was in a conscious and fit state of mind to give her statement.
42. PW -1, SDM, in his depositions has stated that Dying Declaration was recorded by him on being called by the Dr. R.S. Agarwal of District Hospital who had also given certificate stating that the deceased/ patient was in a fit condition to give statement. He further deposed that the statement was written by him as told by the injured, Guddi, in reply to his questions, and also certified that the injured, Guddi, was in a sound state of mind and fully conscious at the time of making the declaration.
43. Dr. R.S. Agarwal (PW-5) has also deposed that he had called the SDM for recording the statement of the victim and had certified that the victim was conscious and in a fit state of mind to make dying declaration.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given some point wise guidelines in Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060. In the present case as per the guidelines, the Dying Declaration was recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate upon being called by the doctor through the police and at the time of recording the statement of the deceased(injured), the doctor certified that the deceased/injured was in a conscious/fit condition to give her statement regarding the alleged incident.
45. So far as the pro forma of recording the dying declaration and its reliability are concerned, we are supported in our view by the decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Kumar Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 646, wherein the hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"13. It is well settled that a truthful and reliable dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction even though it is not corroborated. However, the reliability of declaration should be subjected to close scrutiny and the courts must be satisfied that the declaration is truthful.
16. The submission of Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the dying declaration is untenable being without mentioning the time when the statement was recorded as also not in the question answer form, cannot be sustained. Merely because dying declaration was not in question answer form, the sanctity attached to a dying declaration as it comes from the mouth of a dying person cannot be brushed aside and its reliability cannot be doubted."
(emphasis supplied)
46. Therefore, the law is clear that there is no specific pro forma for recording such a statement in a particular manner or form. Although, if it is in question and answer form, more weightage is generally given to it. However, the S.D.M. in the present case, deposed that he had asked questions to the deceased and her answers were recorded in the form of her statement, and as per law, it cannot be said that the Dying Declaration not worth believing.
47. In view of the above, we do not find any legal infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge, which we have independently reconsidered and re-appreciated. The prosecution has been in successful in proving the F.I.R., dying declaration, injury report, and postmortem report through ocular and documentary evidence.
48. In view of the above, we concur with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in holding the accused-appellant guilty.
49. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are confirmed.
50. The accused-appellant Nathoo shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence.
51. Record of proceedings of the Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court within two weeks.
Order Date :- 17.05.2025 K.K. Maurya