Delhi District Court
State vs Rajpal on 20 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27843/2016)
FIR No. 118/2011
Police Station Roop Nagar
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 302/34 IPC.
Charges framed against accused Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34
persons. IPC.
State Versus 1. Rajpal,
S/o Sh. Khem Chand,
R/o H. No. 602/E/17,
25/131, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Geeta,
W/o Sh. Rajpal,
R/o H. No. 602/E/17,
25/131, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi.
3. Anubhav Rana,
S/o Sh. Rajpal,
R/o H. No. 602/E/17,
25/131, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi.
...Accused Persons.
Date of Institution of case 07.12.2011
Date of Arguments 10.09.2025 & 11.09.2025
Judgment reserved on 11.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on 20.09.2025
Decision Acquitted
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 1 of 77
State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Rajpal, Geeta and Anubhav Rana are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. The story of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:00 pm at back/near/under H. No. 25/131, Shakti Nagar, Delhi all the three aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Ms. Kiran by setting her on fire by pouring petrol upon her.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 17.08.2011, on receiving DD No. 30A, Ex. PW-14/A regarding a girl setting herself on fire at Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar, PW-27 Inspector Ajay Kumar Yadav (then PSI) along with Ct. Pradeep went to the spot of incident i.e. back side of H. No. 25/132, Shakti Nagar where it was revealed that injured had been shifted to hospital by PCR. Thereafter, Crime Team was called which inspected the spot of incident. Thereafter PW-27 Inspector Ajay Kumar Yadav reached LNJP Hospital where injured Ms. Kiran was found admitted and doctor declared her to be fit for making statement. PW-27 Inspector Ajay Kumar Yadav recorded her statement, Ex. PW-23/DC. Thereafter mother of injured/deceased Kiran informed that the injured/deceased wanted to make one more statement in presence of SHO. Thereafter, on direction of SHO, PW-27 Inspector Ajay recorded second statement of injured/deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-27/DD. Thereafter further investigation of this case was entrusted to PW-23 SI Ranjeet Singh and PW-27 Inspector Ajay handed over FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 2 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
the MLC of victim/deceased Kiran, her two statements, Crime Team report and finger print reports to him.
3. During investigation, it was revealed that there were variations in the statements of injured/deceased Kiran, therefore, it was decided by senior officers to get her statement recorded through concerned SDM. Thereafter Executive Magistrate was deputed by the court for recording the statement of victim/deceased, who went to the hospital and recorded the statement of injured/deceased Kiran as Ex. PW-1/A in which she alleged that she had love affair with one Anubhav and she wanted to marry him but he refused to do marry with her and when she was standing in the parking of house of Anubhav, his parents namely accused Rajbir and accused Geeta set her on fire by pouring petrol. Thereafter PW-23 SI Ranjeet Singh prepared rukka on the basis of statements of injured/deceased and got recorded the present FIR under Sec. 307/34 IPC at PS Roop Nagar. Thereafter IO/PW-23 SI Ranjeet Singh along with Ct. Pradeep and PSI Ajay went to the spot of incident where IO prepared site plan, Ex. PW-23/B at instance of PSI Ajay. IO also seized one plastic bottle containing some drops of petrol, burnt piece of bra, burnt pieces of clothes, burnt hairs and slipper from the spot of incident. IO also lifted earth control from the spot of incident.
4. During investigation, IO arrested accused Rajpal from the spot at the instance of some informers and conducted his personal search. IO also recorded the statement of person who FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 3 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
made call at 100 number. During investigation, on 23.08.2011, IO received information that the injured Kiran had succumbed to burn injuries during her treatment at LNJP Hospital. Thereafter IO went to the hospital and got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, recorded dead body identification statements of witnesses and after postmortem, he handed over the dead body to father of deceased. Thereafter on direction of SHO, Sec. 302 IPC was added in the case diary and further investigation was entrusted to PW-8 Inspector Rajesh Malhotra. During investigation, IO obtained postmortem report of deceased Kiran, recorded statements of parents of deceased, prepared site plan at instance of SI Ranjeet, recorded supplementary statements of parents of deceased and tried to search for the remaining accused persons but they could not be traced. During investigation, IO also obtained NBWs against accused Geeta and Anubhav, recorded statements of persons who made PCR calls, obtained photographs from Crime Team, got prepared scaled site plan and sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini for expert opinion. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the Court through the SHO. After obtaining FSL result and formal arrest of accused persons namely Geeta and Anubhav, supplementary charge-sheet was also filed before the court.
5. Vide order dated 1 4 . 11 . 2 0 11 copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused Rajpal under Section 207 Cr.P.C and v i d e o r d e r d a t e d 3 0 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 1 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. After filing of FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 4 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
supplementary charge-sheet, vide order dated 28.02.2012, copy of supplementary charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons namely Anubhav Rana and Geeta and the supplementary charge- sheet was also committed to the court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.PC.
6. Vide order dated 16.02.2013, the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec 302 read with 34 IPC against all the three accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 32 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
8. PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate, Civil Lines has proved the statement of deceased Kiran (dying declaration) recorded by him at LNJP hospital as Ex. PW-1/A. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that statement of Kiran was not read over to her. He also deposed that deceased was educated and she herself also had read her statement. He also denied the suggestion that deceased Kiran was not in a position to make the statement and same was fabricated by him at behest of her parents.
9. PW-2 Dr. Anand Pawar, has proved the detailed postmortem report No. 761/2011 of deceased Kiran, D/o Sh. Satyapal Singh, prepared under supervision of Dr. Kulbhushan as Ex. PW-2/A. He also deposed that cause of death was FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 5 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
'septicemia consequent to infected burn injuries'. He also deposed that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by flames of fire. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he could not give opinion as to whether it was a case of self immolation or deceased was burnt by some other person.
10. PW-3 Sh. Satyapal was the father of deceased. He deposed that on 16.08.2011 at about 10:00 pm, accused Geeta and Rajpal came to his house and told him that accused Anubhav and deceased Kiran were in love and they had developed physical relations also. He further deposed that at about 10:45 pm, he along with deceased Kiran and his wife Snehlata went to the house of accused persons namely Geeta and Rajpal and had talked with them and asked them to get Anubhav and Kiran married as they were in love and had developed physical relations but accused Rajpal and Geeta refused to get them married. He further deposed that on 17-18.08.2011 at 12:15 am, when he reached LNJP Hospital, his deceased daughter told him that when she went to parking in the house of Anubhav and was talking with him, at about 08:15 pm, Geeta and Rajpal came there and they poured petrol upon her and put her on fire. He also deposed that on 17/18.08.2011, his deceased daughter also told him that she had developed physical relations with Anubhav and he had committed rape upon her. He also deposed that her daughter also told him that accused Anubhav wanted to marry with his deceased daughter since they had developed physical relations many times. He further deposed that accused persons FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 6 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
namely Geeta, Rajpal and Anubhav had deliberately killed his daughter because Anubhav wanted to marry with her daughter but his parents did not want to do so. He further deposed that on 17.08.2011, he was on duty at Control Room, DTC BBM Depot-I and at about 10:00 pm, when he reached home, the police told him that his daughter Kiran had been burnt at the house of Rajpal and she had been shifted to JPN Hospital. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, in which he admitted that he had stated to the Police that his deceased daughter told him that when she was talking with accused Anubhav, the parents of Anubhav came from behind and poured petrol upon her and put her to fire. He also admitted that he had told the Police that his daughter did not tell him who amongst the father or mother of Anubhav, poured petrol upon her and put her on fire. He also admitted that his deceased daughter Kiran was having two mobile phones having nos. 9210657136 & 9911159501 through which she used to talk with accused Anubhav and Anubhav was also have two mobile phones. He also admitted that he identified the dead body of his daughter before her postmortem and police recorded his statement, Ex. PW-3/A in this regard. He also admitted that dead body handing over memo prepared by police as Ex. PW-3/B. He also admitted that his daughter died on 23.08.2011 at 05:30 am in LNJP Hospital.
11. PW-3 Sh. Satyapal was cross-examined and length. In his cross-examination he deposed that his children including his FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 7 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
deceased daughter Kiran were also aware about the customs of Jaat community. He also deposed that his wife basically belonged to village Khera Kalan, Delhi and she belonged to Rana Gotra before marriage. He admitted that accused Anubhav also belonged to village Khera Kalan, Delhi and he also belonged to Rana Gotra. He denied the suggestion that accused Anubhav Rana never developed physical relations with his deceased daughter Kiran. He also deposed that police had recorded his statement only once in this case. He also deposed that police officials made no writing work in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was informed by his daughter that she immolated herself. He also denied the suggestion that his daughter had levelled allegations against the accused persons at their instance as he and his wife tutored her so that marriage of her daughter could be performed with accused Anubhav by pressuring the parents of accused Anubhav on the garb of prosecution in criminal case. He also deposed that he did not get angry after the refusal from parents of accused Anubhav since accused Anubhav himself told him that he would talk to his daughter Kiran and will sort out all the things. He denied the suggestion that incident of burning of his daughter took place in front of H. No. 25/66, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that on 17.08.2011, no one took the name of the accused persons to be involved in this incident of burning of his daughter. In his further cross-examination, he deposed that he had not made any complaint regarding the incident in question to the police on 17.08.2011 or 18.08.2011. He admitted that accused FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 8 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
family were not his relative. He also admitted that his wife started tying Rakhi to accused Rajpal. He denied the suggestion that he had knowledge that his daughter was aware of this fact or that deliberately he was not making correct statement in this regard. He also deposed that on 17.08.2011, in his presence, SHO did not make any inquiry from the neighbours. He admitted that before he reached the hospital neither his wife nor his daughter Kiran had made any complaint against the accused persons. He also deposed that on 18.08.2011 statement of her daughter was recorded at about 02:30 pm in his presence but he did not know the name and designation of the person who came to record the statement of his daughter at 02:30 pm but he was accompanied by the SHO and IO. He deposed that he did not make any inquiry as to how the incident took place from the public persons as no public persons were present there. He denied the suggestion that public persons were present there at the spot in large number including those persons who had tried to save her. He also deposed that he did not know whether the Magistrate who had recorded the statement of her daughter on 18.08.2011 at about 02:30 pm prepared any document qua voluntariness or the mental condition of his daughter prior to recording her statement. He also deposed that he had no knowledge if his daughter had made any statement on 18.08.2011 to the police or not. He denied the suggestion that from the intervening night of 17/18.08.2011, he and his wife tutored and pressurized her daughter to implicate the accused persons in the incident. He also deposed that he told the police that on the intervening night of 17/18.08.2011, his FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 9 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
daughter told him that she had developed physical relations with Anubhav and he had committed rape upon her. He also deposed that on 18.08.2011, the Executive Magistrate who had come to record the statement of her daughter in the hospital at around 02:30 pm and he did not make any inquiry from him or his wife.
12. PW-4 Smt. Sneh Lata, was the mother of deceased Kiran. She deposed that accused persons were residing at 25/131, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and they were having family terms with each other. She also deposed that on 16.08.2011, at about 10:00 pm, parents of accused Anubhav came to their house and they told them that accused Anubhav and their daughter Kiran were in love with each other and they had also developed physical relations. She further deposed that on the same night, at about 10:45 pm, she along with her husband and daughter Kiran went to the house of accused persons for talk. She further deposed that they presented a proposal before them for the marriage of accused Anubhav and deceased Kiran but accused Rajpal and Geeta refused to get them married. She further deposed that accused Anubhav told them that he would talk to Kiran separately tomorrow on this matter. She also deposed that on 17.08.2011, Kiran left their house at about 06:30 pm for talking to accused Anubhav and at about 08:30-09:00 pm, they received an information from a boy of their neighbourhood that Kiran had burnt in the house of accused persons. She further deposed that when they reached Ghanta Ghar Chowk, her husband had informed her on phone that Kiran had burnt and she was shifted by Police to Irwin Hospital. She FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 10 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
also deposed that she along with her son went to Irwin Hospital where they found Kiran in a dressing room. She further deposed that when Kiran came out of dressing room, she told her that when she was talking with accused Anubhav at his residence in the parking situated at ground floor, in the meanwhile, petrol was poured on her from behind and she was put to fire due to which she got burnt and when she saw behind, parents of accused Anubhav, namely accused Rajpal and Geeta were present there. She further deposed that her daughter Kiran was burnt about 70%. She also deposed that she can say with certainty that her daughter was burnt by accused Anubhav and his parents i.e. accused Rajpal and Geeta. She also deposed that later on her daughter Kiran expired on 23.08.2011. On putting leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she admitted that statement of her deceased daughter was recorded by Executive Magistrate which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A bearing her signature at point 'A'. This witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of accused persons. In her cross-examination, she admitted that accused Rajpal visited her house on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and she tied rakhi to him. She deposed that she was not aware that one complaint/information was submitted by accused Rajpal in PS Roop Nagar on 17.08.2011, Mark-PW-3/DC and no inquiry was made by police from her regarding this complaint/information. She also deposed that she was not aware as to who gave information to her husband regarding the incident. She also deposed that she did not hand over the mobile phone of her daughter to the police. She also FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 11 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
deposed that she and her family members remained present in the hospital throughout the intervening night of 17.08.2011 & 18.08.2011 and on 18.08.2011 also the entire day, they were present in the hospital alongwith their daughter. She denied the suggestion that when they were in hospital, statements of her daughter were recorded by police officials before 12:00 noon of 18.08.2011. She also deposed that on 17.08.2011 and 18.08.2011, neither she nor her husband made any complaint to the police officials or to any other person regarding the incident in question or against the accused persons. She also deposed that the Executive Magistrate did not make any inquiry from the doctors in her presence prior to entering into the dressing room nor they made any inquiry from the doctors after coming out of the dressing room. She also deposed that apart from her, her husband and her son, no other family member or relative or any known to them was present in the hospital on 17.08.2011 or 18.08.2011. She also deposed that one month after the incident, her statement was recorded by the police officials in the Police Station. She denied the suggestion that accused persons were innocent and had been falsely implicated by them in the present case.
13. PW-5 W/ASI Anita Upreti, was the duty officer who proved copy of present FIR and her endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-5/A & Ex. PW-5/B. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
14. PW-6 Inspector Manohar Lal, was the Draughtsman who proved scaled site plan as Ex. PW-6/A. In his cross-examination, FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 12 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
he admitted that in the rough site plan and in the scaled site plan, the exact place of incident and other material aspects pertaining to the incident were specifically shown. He deposed that he did not remember, if IO called any persons namely Triloki Nath Gupta or Jasvinder Singh for the purpose of making the site plan, being the eyewitness of the incident. He also deposed that he could not say Smt. Madhur Gupta, wife of Triloki Nath Gupta, the owner of H. No. 25/122 had called PCR from landline no. 23844412 on 17.08.2011 and had given information regarding the incident. He admitted that the incident in question took place under lane outside H. No. 25/66, 25/132 & 25/121, Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar, Delhi. He also deposed that he did not know that the accused persons were the residents of H. No. 25/131, 2 nd Floor. He admitted that H. No. 25/131 was shown in the site plan at point 'B'.
15. PW-7 Sh. Baldev Singh, was the uncle of deceased. He identified the dead body of deceased vide his statement, Ex. PW-7/A and obtained dead body of deceased after postmortem vide receipt Ex. PW-3/B. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
16. PW-8 Inspector Rajesh Malhotra, deposed that on 02.09.2011, further investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. He further deposed that on 05.09.2011, he obtained postmortem report of deceased, on 06.09.2011, he recorded supplementary statement of father of deceased and on 07.09.2011 he recorded statement of mother of deceased. He FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 13 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
further deposed that on 08.09.2011, he prepared site plan, Ex. PW-8/A at instance of SI Ranjeet, recorded supplementary statements of parents of deceased and tried to search for the remaining accused persons but in vain. He further deposed that on 26.09.2011, he obtained PCR forms pertaining to the incident, obtained photographs from Crime Team and on 20.10.2011 and sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini through Ct. Manoj. In his cross- examination, he admitted that as per information received vide DD No. 31A dated 17.08.2011, it was informed that 'ek ladki ne aag laga li hai'. He admitted that as per information received vide DD No. 30A, dated 17.08.2011, it was informed that 'ek ladke ne apne aap ko aag laga li hain'. He deposed that he had made inquiries from guard residing at the ground floor of the building where the accused persons used to reside at the relevant time. He deposed that he had not recorded the statement of the guard. He also deposed that he had examined the inhabitants of the building where the accused persons were residing at the relevant time. He also deposed that he had not recorded the statements of inhabitants of the building.
17. PW-9 Smt. Madhur Gupta was the caller who made call at 100 number. She deposed that she was residing at H. No. 25/122, Ground Floor, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. She further deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:00-08:30 pm, she was present in her house and was preparing meal and at that time she heard a commotion and loud noise coming from outside of her house. She further deposed that she came out and found that one person FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 14 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
was engulfed in fire and four-five persons including one Subhash Gupta were trying to blow off the fire. She further deposed that she immediately went into her house and called the police at 100 number from her landline telephone. She also deposed that at that time, she was not aware as to whether the said person who was ablazed, was a man or woman. She further deposed that she brought blanket and water bucket from her house to put off the fire. She further deposed that when the fire of that person was doused, she came to know that the person who was ablazed, was a woman. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
18. PW-10 W/Ct. Sheela, deposed that on 17.08.2011, she was posted at CPCR, PHQ, Delhi. She further deposed that on that day at about 08:18 pm, a call was received from telephone no. 23844412 that one person was ablazed near 25/1122, Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar, Delhi. She proved PCR form in this regard as Ex. PW-10/A along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-10/B. This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
19. PW-11 Sh. Mandeep, deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 07:45 pm, he left house along with his daughter Aanya, aged about three years, in a pram and he was going to the GTK Main Road. He further deposed that when he took right turn towards a gali, he saw one girl standing there who was holding a small polythene bag and one plastic bottle containing yellow colour FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 15 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
liquid. He further deposed that thereafter he entered into the gali, again took right turn towards another gali as per his routine and then again took right turn to one gali for going to his home and he again saw the same girl standing near H. No. 25/122, Shakti Nagar holding the same polythene bag and bottle. He further deposed that he saw some persons running and heard loud noses coming from the gali behind H. No. 25/131 and 25/132. He further deposed that he left his child inside his house and rushed to the gali where he found a crowd gathered. He further deposed that police was also present there and the same girl whom he saw earlier holding polythene bag and bottle containing yellow liquid was found lying wrapped in bed sheet. In his cross-examination, he deposed that about 12-14 public persons including 3-4 females were present at the spot when, he reached there. He also deposed that he remained present at the spot for around 5-7 minutes and then he left for his house as he was feeling uncomfortable. He also deposed that Police did not make inquiry from anybody in his presence.
20. PW-12 Dr. Kulbhushan, Assistant Professor, AIIMS, New Delhi deposed that on 23.08.2011, he along with Dr. Anand Pawar conducted the postmortem of the deceased Kiran. He proved detailed postmortem report of deceased Kiran as Ex. PW-2/A. He also opined about the cause of death as 'septicemia consequent to infected burn injuries. He also deposed that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by flames of fire. He also deposed that time since death was around seven FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 16 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
hours. In his cross-examination, he admitted that upon examining the victim by the concerned doctor on 17.08.2011, he had found the patient fit for statement and an endorsement to that effect was already pointed out at point A on MLC, Ex. PW-15/A. He also deposed that in the MLC, Ex. PW-15/A, no fact was recorded to this effect that someone had poured petrol on the victim. He also deposed that the history of the case mentioned in the postmortem report, Ex. PW15/A was given by IO. He also deposed that he did not recall whether IO had asked for any opinion from him qua the line of treatment given to the victim during the course of her stay in the hospital prior to her death. He also deposed that videography or photography of the postmortem of the victim was not conducted in the present case.
21. PW-13 Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. proved CAF along the ID proof and CDR of mobile phone no. 7838380737 issued in the name of Sh. Jasvinder, S/o Sh. Kashmir, R/o 25/136, Shakti Nagar, Second Floor, Near Manav Misthan Bhandhar, Delhi as Ex. PW-13/A & Ex. PW-13/B. He also proved certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act qua the abovesaid CDR as Ex. PW-13/C. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
22. PW-14 ASI Raman Kumar, was Duty Officer at PS Roop Nagar. He deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:25 pm, an information was received that one person had set himself on fire at Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar. He proved DD No. 30A regarding FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 17 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
this information as Ex. PW14/A. He also deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:35 pm another information was received through PCR that one lady had set herself on fire near Guddo ki Market, Shakti Nagar. He also proved DD No. 31A in this regard as Ex. PW-14/B. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
23. PW-15 Dr. Varsha Gupta, Specialist Department of Burns & Plastic Surgery, Lok Nayak Hospital has proved the MLC of deceased prepared by Dr. Manoj Kumar as Ex. PW-15/A. She also proved death summary of Kiran prepared by Dr. Manoj Kumar as Ex. PW-15/B. In her cross-examination, she deposed that after examining the status of the patient and speaking to the patient, the status as to whether the patient is fit for statement or not is recorded.
24. PW-16 Inspector Devender, was the In-Charge of Crime Team. He deposed about the proceedings conducted by him alongwith his staff ASI Jai Singh, finger print proficient and Ct. Ravinder, photographer at the spot of incident i.e. beside electric pole no. 417-42-3/3/1, opposite H. No. 25/132, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW-16/A. He also proved the report of Fingerprint Expert as Ex. PW-16/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he reached at the spot at around 09:00 pm and stayed there for about 25-30 minutes. He also deposed that he did not remember whether public persons were present at the spot or not. He also deposed that no inquiry was made from public persons by SI Ajay in his presence.
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 18 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
25. PW-17 ASI Rajbir Singh, was the Duty Officer at PS Roop Nagar. He deposed that on 23.07.2011, at about 07:10 am, an information was received through Ct. Praveen that one girl namely Kiran who suffered burn injuries and was admitted at LNJP Hospital was declared dead by the doctor. He proved DD No. 7A regarding the said information as Ex. PW-17/A. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
26. PW-18 Sh. Ram Niwas, Supervisor, MTNL has proved certificate regarding address and subscribership of telephone no. 23844412 as Ex. PW-18/A. He also proved record of aforesaid telephone numbers which was installed at 26/15, Ground Floor, Shakti Nagar, Delhi in the name of Sh. Triloki Nath Gupta as Ex. PW-18/B. This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
27. PW-19 Dr. Arvind Mohan, CMO, Lok Nayak Hospital has proved the MLC of deceased Kiran as Ex. PW-15/A. He also deposed that patient was referred to Burn & Plastic Surgery Emergency. In his cross-examination, he admitted that patient was conscious and oriented as per MLC and she was fit for statement at 11:00 pm on 17.08.2011.
28. PW-20 Ct. Ravinder was photographer at Mobile Crime Team. He proved the photographs (7 nos.), Ex. PX-1 to PX-7 and their negatives, Ex. PX-8 (colly) of the the spot of incident, from different angles. In his cross-examination, he admitted that other staff of PS Roop Nagar was also present at the spot of incident FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 19 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
along with PSI Ajay Yadav. He also deposed that he did not know whether the In-charge Crime Team had made inquiry from public persons present there. He also deposed that the In-charge Crime Team had met concerned official at PS Roop Nagar but he did not remember his name. He also deposed that he had not met any official at PS Roop Nagar with regard to the case on 18.08.2011. He also deposed that he could not tell about the details of the houses after seeing the photographs Ex. PX-1 to Ex. PX-7.
29. PW-21 Inspector Dinesh Sharma, deposed that on 24.08.2011 since the victim had expired, Sec. 302 IPC was added in the present case and the further investigation was entrusted to him. He also deposed that the case file was already sent to the Prosecution Branch for opinion. He also deposed that on 27.08.2011, he proceeded on the medical leave and he submitted the case file with MHCR. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was looking after the work of SHO, PS Roop Nagar on 17.08.2011. He also deposed that he had gone to the spot after receiving information of the incident on 17.08.2011. He admitted that after reaching the spot, he had directed PSI Ajay Yadav to conduct the investigation. He admitted that victim was declared fit for statement by the doctor and PSI Ajay Yadav recorded the statement of victim Ms. Kiran on his instruction. He also deposed that he did not remember whether the parents of victim were present in the hospital on 17.08.2011 when the statement of victim was recorded. He denied the suggestion that the parents of victim had requested him to get her statement recorded again. He FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 20 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
admitted that statement of victim was recorded again on 17.08.2011. He deposed that he did not know whether accused Rajpal had given complaint against the victim in the PS on 17.08.2011 at 02:00 pm. He also deposed that since he was not aware of the contents of the complaint, Ex. PW-8/DB, he had not made any inquiry about the follow up action on the said complaint after the incident. He also deposed that he did not remember whether the parents of victim were present in the hospital at the time of recording of her third statement. He denied the suggestion that he had not performed duty diligently and did not make any effort to save the life of victim after receiving the complaint from accused Rajpal on 17.08.2011 regarding suicide attempt by deceased in the afternoon of 17.08.2011.
30. PW-22 Retd. ASI Krishan Lal, deposed that on 17.08.2011, he was posted as In-charge PCR Van Sugar-45 along with Ct. Mahender and Ct. Yogender. He further deposed that at about 08:20 pm, he had received information from Control Room that a boy set himself on fire at H. No. 25/1122, Shakti Nagar. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, at about 08:22 pm, he had received information from Control Room that one girl set herself on fire at H. No. 25/131, Shakti Nagar. He further deposed he reached at the spot within five minutes, where he came to know that both the information regarding the said incident was of one incident. He further deposed that one burnt girl was found at the spot who was covered with bed-sheet and she was crying. He further deposed that they immediately took the girl inside their FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 21 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
PCR van. He also deposed that local police had also reached at the spot and 10-12 public persons including male and female had also gathered there. He further deposed that they left the spot along with aforesaid girl for JPN Hospital by their PCR Van and in the way, he had tried to know the reason of fire from the girl but she did not reply and kept stating that 'call my father'. He further deposed that he asked about the contact number of her father but she could not remember the same and she disclosed her name as Ms. Kiran, D/o Sh. Satyapal, aged 24 years, R/o H. No. 7778, Kachcha Pakka Quarter, Shakti Nagar. He further deposed that girl Kiran was got admitted in JPN hospital in conscious state and doctor declared her 70% burnt. He proved details of said calls recorded in wireless log and diary as Ex. PW-8/DA (colly). In his cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached at the spot, he did not come to know that the injured girl had self immolated herself. He also deposed that he did not recall today as to whether at the time of recording of his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, in the present matter, he had stated to the IO that the public person present at the spot had informed that the girl had immolated herself. He denied the suggestion that despite having made such statement under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, deliberately and malafidely to conceal material fact, he was making a false statement to the above effect. He admitted that girl Kiran was conscious and well oriented.
31. PW-23 SI Ranjeet Singh, was the Investigating Officer in the present case. He deposed that on 17.08.2011, DD No. 30A, FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 22 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
Ex. PW-14/A was recorded in Police Station and the same was marked to PSI Ajay. He further deposed that on direction of SHO PS Roop Nagar, he reached at LNJP Hospital where PSI Ajay met him and handed over the MLC of burned deceased/victim, two statements of deceased Kiran, Crime Team report and finger print reports to him. He further deposed that since there were variations in the statements of injured Kiran, therefore, it was decided by senior officers to get her statement recorded through concerned SDM. He further deposed that Executive Magistrate was deputed by the court who went to the hospital and recorded the statement of injured/deceased Kiran as Ex. PW-1/A. He further deposed that he prepared rukka after making endorsement, Ex. PW-5/B on statement of injured/deceased Kiran and got recorded the present FIR under Sec. 307/34 IPC at PS Roop Nagar. He further deposed that he along with Ct. Pradeep and PSI Ajay went to the spot of incident where he prepared site plan, Ex. PW-23/B at instance of PSI Ajay and seized one plastic bottle containing some drops of petrol, burnt piece of bra, burnt pieces of clothes, burnt hairs and slipper from the spot of incident, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-23/C. He further deposed that he also lifted earth control from the spot of incident and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-23/D. He further deposed that he arrested accused Rajpal from the spot at the instance of some informers, vide arrest memo Ex. PW-23/E and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-23/F. He further deposed that he also recorded the statement of person who made call at 100 number. He also deposed that on FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 23 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
23.08.2011, at early morning, he received information that the injured Kiran had expired in LNJP Hospital. He further deposed that thereafter he went to the hospital and recorded dead body identification statement of Sh. Satyapal Singh, Ex. PW-3/A and after postmortem on the body of deceased, the dead body was handed over to father of deceased Sh. Satpal Singh, vide memo Ex. PW-3/B. This witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of accused persons. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was not having knowledge of the fact that on 15.08.2011, accused Rajpal had submitted a written information/request letter, Ex. PW-8/DB in PS Roop Nagar regarding a suicide attempt being made by one girl namely Kiran. He deposed that he had not inquired from ASI Preet Pal regarding complaint, Ex. PW-8/DB. He admitted that the girl mentioned in Ex. PW-8/DB was the same girl who was deceased in the present case. He also deposed that he had no knowledge as to what action was taken on the complaint, Ex. PW-8/DB. He also deposed that the public witnesses and local inhabitants of the area had witnessed the incident and they had got recorded their statements regarding the incident seen by them. He also deposed that the first statement of the victim was already recorded by PSI Ajay Yadav in LNJP Hospital must prior to his visit to the hospital. He also deposed that he had not seen the parents of the victim in the hospital. He also deposed that prior to making the statement, Ex. PW-23/DC, the victim did not give any complaint against any of the accused persons facing trial in the present case. He also deposed that the partents of victim also did not give any complaint against the FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 24 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
accused persons, prior to and after makeing the above statement, Ex. PW-23/DC. He also deposed that he could not state as to after how many hours of recording of first statement of victim, Ex. PW-23/DC, the abovesaid second statement, Ex. PW-23/DD was recorded. He also deposed that in the second statement made by the victim, Ex. PW-23/DD, she did not make any statement to this effect that the earlier statement was incorrect or that she forgot or omitted to mention complete and correct facts or that she wanted to withdraw her first statement. He also deposed that in the second statement also, the victim did not make any allegations against the accused person. He also deposed that there was no document to show that the Executive Magistrate Sh. Madan Lal had requested the doctors at LNJP Hospital to examine the victim as to whether she was fit to give statement. He also deposed that he had not shown the presence of any of the accused persons in the site plan, Ex. PW-23/B or the scaled site plan. He also deposed that no public person or local inhabitants or neighbours made any statement before him against any of the accused persons. He also deposed that the place of incident was located in densely populated area and people of area were known to each other and none of them made any statement against accused persons. He also deposed that he cannot admit or deny that the statement of the victim made to the PCR team that she had self immolated herself was corroborated during the course of examination by public persons who were present there and witnessed the incident.
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 25 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
32. PW-24 ASI Kailash, was the MHC(M) at PS Roop Nagar. He proved entries in register no. 19 regarding deposition of case property on 18.08.2011 & 23.08.2011 by IO exhibited as Ex. PW-24/A & Ex. PW-24/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know as to whether SI Ranjeet Singh was investigating the present matter prior to 18.08.2011. He also deposed that he did not know as to whether the abovesaid exhibits were available at the spot on 17.08.2011 or that the same was already dealt by Crime Team and PSI Ajay Yadav. He also deposed that PSI Ajay Yadav or Crime Team had not handed over any of the abovesaid exhibits to him on 17.08.2011.
33. PW-25 Inspector Kanwar Sain, deposed that on 10.11.2011 further investigation of the present case was entrusted to him thereafter he prepared charge-sheet and filed the same before the court. He narrated about formal arrest of accused Geeta, vide arrest memo, Ex. PW-25/A and filing of supplementary charge- sheet. He also deposed that he also obtained FSL results, Ex. PW-25/B & Ex. PW-25/C and filed the same before the court. In his cross-examination, he deposed that it had come in the statement of public witnesses who had witnessed the incident that the victim had immolated herself. He also deposed that he had not conducted any investigation upon receiving the case file as the investigation was almost complete. He also deposed that he did not make any investigation regarding the averments as detailed in this complaint, Ex. PW-8/DB.
34. PW-26 HC Manoj Kumar, deposed that on 20.10.2011, on FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 26 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
direction of IO, he obtained eight sealed parcels from MHC(M) vide RC No. 59/21/11 and deposited the same in FSL Rohini. He also deposed that he obtained acknowledgment from FSL and handed over the same to MHC(M). This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
35. PW-27 Inspector Ajay Kumar Yadav, deposed that on 17.08.2011, on receiving DD No. 30A, Ex. PW-14/A regarding a girl had set herself on fire at Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar, he along with Ct. Pradeep went to the spot of incident i.e. back side of H. No. 25/132, Shakti Nagar where it was revealed that injured had been shifted to hospital by PCR. He further deposed that in the meanwhile SHO also reached there and thereafter, Crime Team was called who inspected the spot of incident. He further deposed that he directed Ct. Pardeep to remain at the spot and he went to LNJP Hospital where injured Ms. Kiran was found admitted and doctor declared her to be fit for making statement. He further deposed that he recorded her statement, Ex. PW-23/DC. He further deposed that mother of injured informed that the injured wanted to make one more statement in presence of SHO, therefore, on direction of SHO, he recorded second statement of injured, Ex. PW-2/DD. He further deposed that further investigation of this case was entrusted to PW-23 SI Ranjeet Singh and he handed over the MLC of deceased/victim and her both statements to him. He further deposed that he along with SI Ranjeet Singh returned to the spot where, IO seized one plastic FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 27 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
bottle containing some drops of petrol, burnt piece of bra, burnt pieces of clothes, burnt hairs and slipper from the spot of incident and site plan was also prepared. In his cross-examination, he deposed that on 17.08.2011, a call was received at Control Room at 08:20 pm to this effect that one girl had self immolated herself. He also deposed that the factum that girl had self immolated herself was recorded in DD No. 30A, Ex. PW-14/A. He also deposed that the in the PCR report also the factum was recorded to this effect that one girl had self immolated herself. He also deposed that the girl had informed about her name, parentage and residential address to PCR team and PCR team recorded this fact in document Ex. PW-8/DA and had also recorded that girl was conscious. He also deposed that he had examined the victim and made inquiries from her as to how she has suffered burned injuries. He also deposed that the statement was recorded by him as stated by the victim herself. He also deposed that the victim had stated to him that she had put oil on her body on her own and had immolated herself at the lane and that when she was burning then at that time the people who were nearby had controlled the fire and the victim herself also read her statement and he had also read over and explained to her about the same only thereafter she signed at point 'A' and then at point 'B'. He also deposed that no complaint was made by mother or the brother of the victim to him or to the SHO in the hospital when they were there. He also deposed that after recording of the first statement of victim, Ex. PW-23/DC, the mother and brother of the victim spoke to the victim for sometime. He also deposed that when the mother and FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 28 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
brother met and spoke the victim, after some time the mother came back to them i.e. to him and SHO and requested them that the victim again wanted to make the statement. He also deposed that the second statement of the victim, Ex. PW-23/DD was recorded in presence of the SHO, the mother and brother of victim and the hospital staff attending her. He also deposed that he had not examined the servants who were residing at the parking space of the ground floor where the accused persons were residing.
36. PW-28 SI Jai Singh was the Fingerprint Expert at Mobile Crime Team. He deposed that he tried to lift/develop fingerprints from the articles i.e. plastic water bottle of Bisleri brand but same could not be developed. He proved his report in this regard as Ex. PW-16/B. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he examined the scene of crime only for twenty minutes i.e. from 09:05 pm to 09:25 pm and in these twenty minutes, he was himself aware about the incident in question, examined not only the abovesaid plastic bottle but other articles such as half burnt bra, some burnt pieces of clothes, one pair of rubber chappal and some hair strands. He also deposed that none of the photographs showed the use of grey powder by him to lift the fingerprints from the plastic bottle of Bisleri brand. He also deposed that he did not remember whether he was asked or he had taken the fingerprints of the accused persons who are facing trial in the present case. He denied the suggestion that on that day, he had not made any FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 29 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
effort to lift fingerprints or that he had submitted report, Ex. PW-16/B without conducting any examination of the articles.
37. PW-29 Ms. Manisha Upadhyay, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini has proved her detailed report as Ex. PW-25/C. She also deposed that from morphological and microscopical studies, the hair were found to be of human in origin and the exhibits were similar in most of their morphological and microscopical characteristics. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
38. PW-30 ASI Kailash, was the MHC(M) at PS Roop Nagar. He proved entries in register no. 19 & 21 regarding movement of case properties as Ex. PW-30/A to Ex. PW-30/C. He also proved acknowledgment of FSL regarding depositing of sealed exhibits as Ex. PW-30/D. This witness was also not cross-examined by accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
39. PW-31 Sh. Sri Narain, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini has his detailed report as Ex. PW-25/B. This witness was also not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons despite opportunity given to them.
40. PW-32 Sh. Subhash Kumar Gupta, deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:00 pm, he was standing outside his shop at H. No. 26/65, Shakti Nagar, Delhi then he heard cries of a lady coming from the back side of H. No. 25/132, Shakti Nagar and thought that some stray dogs might have bitten the lady. He FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 30 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
further deposed that he ran there and saw a girl in flames. He further deposed that he caught hold of her garments from the back side, torn the same and some of the public person covered her with bed sheet. He further deposed that he also sustained some burn injury in that episode. He also deposed that some of the public person poured water upon the girl to douse the fire. He further deposed that police was called which removed the said girl to hospital. He also deposed that he knew accused Rajpal, Geeta and Anubhav Rana being his neighbours. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he had told to the IO that when he reached the spot and attended the victim, he had not seen anyone except the victim girl. He also deposed that he had gone to a doctor to take treatment for burning of his hands hence he cannot say as to whether the crime team had come at the spot or not. He also deposed that he had not seen the family members of the victim and he could not say anything about them as he did not know them. He also deposed that the spot where the incident took place was around 50 steps from his house/shop. He also deposed that the house of accused persons was 50 steps ahead of the place where he had seen the victim burning. He also deposed that the neighbours and local inhabitants who were present along with him on that day were not examined by the IO in his presence.
41. After closing of prosecution evidence, separate statements of all the three accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein they denied all the charges against them. Accused FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 31 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
Rajpal claimed that victim's mother was resident of village Kheda Kalana and he was also resident of same village and they were of the same gotra. He further claimed that the victim's parents were insisting them to get the victim married to their son Anubhav which was strictly refused by them as the marriage was not possible being from the same gotra and her mother being his sister (muh boli behan kyuki mujhe rakhi bandhti thi). He further claimed that on 15.08.2011, the victim went to terrace of their building and tried to jump from terrace and on being informed by a passerby, he and his wife went upstairs and had asked her to go back to her house and thereafter they locked the terrace door. He further claimed that their son had drafted a complaint/letter addressed to SHO informing about the incident and to ensure that the girl did not take any such step. He further claimed that on 17.08.2011, in the afternoon around 01:00-01:30 pm, the victim on her own again came to their house where she met with his wife and son and stayed there for sometime and there was no communication and then she returned back. He further claimed that thereafter he thought it prudent to inform the police and accordingly he submitted the complaint at PS Roop Nagar at 02:00 pm. He further claimed that police officials assured him that they will look into the matter and will speak to girl and her family and thereafter he returned back to his home. He further claimed that in the night, he came to know about this incident from the neighbourhood that girl had self immolated herself which fact was witnesses by the neighbours. He further claimed that the parents of the girl being very upset with the girl's action FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 32 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
and their refusal to their proposal for marriage, they pressurized the girl to take their names in her subsequent statement and under pressure, she subsequently named them. He also claimed that he had not committed the offence and the parents of deceased had dragged them in this case. Accused Anubhav Rana and Geeta have also taken the same defence alike accused Rajpal.
42. Accused persons have examined two defence witnesses. The nature and testimony of the defence witnesses has been briefly discussed as under:-
43. DW-1 HC Sachin has proved 18 DD entries pertaining to investigation of the present case exhibited as Ex. DW-1/A (colly). This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
44. DW-2 Retd. SI Preet Pal, was the Duty Officer at PS Roop Nagar. He deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 14:00 pm, vide DD No. 16A, complaint Ex. PW-8/DB was marked to him for inquiry. He admitted that this complaint was submitted by accused Rajpal in PS Roop Nagar and this complaint was made against Kiran Chaudhary (deceased). He further deposed that he visited PS Roop Nagar to collect the concerned inquiry report prepared by him regarding the complaint marked to him but the same could not be traced hence he was unable to produce the said inquiry report. He also deposed that in his presence, none of the IOs of the present case examined Ms. Kiran Chaudhary (deceased) or her father Satpal Singh regarding the incident FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 33 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
narrated in the complaint, Ex. PW-8/DB. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
45. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Rajesh Anand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
46. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-3 Sh. Satyapal and PW-3 Smt. Snehlata have explained the incident as well as the sequence of things due to which the alleged incident took place. He further argued that the third dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, who was the Executive Magistrate and there was no tutoring before the recording of said dying declaration and hence same should be relied upon. He further argued that the deceased was fit for statement before recording of her dying declaration. He also argued that the alleged incident took place at the house of accused persons. He also argued that evidence with respect to the commission of offence was found near the spot of incident. He also argued that there are only minor contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which are bound to happen in any criminal trial. He further argued that the doctors have proved the cause of death of deceased Kiran and the police officials have duly proved the proceedings conducted by them. He also argued that since the FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 34 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, all the accused persons should be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC.
47. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his points, he argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He further argued that all the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that the deceased had made three dying declarations and in first two dying declarations, she had not named any of the accused. He further argued that at the time of recording of third dying declaration, the Executive Magistrate did not obtain the fitness certificate of deceased from the concerned doctor. He further argued that none of the prosecution witnesses had seen the accused persons at the spot of incident at the time of incident. He further argued that the deceased attempted to commit suicide on 15.08.2011 by trying to jump from the roof of the house of the accused persons and on 17.08.2011, DD No. 16A was lodged in the PS by accused Rajpal but no action was taken by the police in this regard. He further argued that the deceased herself set on fire by pouring petrol on her body and accused persons had not put her on fire. He further argued that the prosecution is not clear about the spot of incident as in the charge, the incident has been shown at H. No. 25/131, Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar, Delhi while the prosecution witnesses have FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 35 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
deposed otherwise and no evidence of fire has been found in the parking area of the house of accused. He further argued that nothing has been brought on record with respect to the physical relations between deceased Kiran and accused Anubhav Rana. He further argued that accused Anubhav and mother of deceased Kiran were of same gotra and hence their marriage was not possible as per the customs of Jaat community and on refusal for marriage from side of accused persons, they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt, all the accused persons should be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302/34 IPC.
48. In the present case, charges under Sec. 302/34 IPC have been framed against all accused persons. These Sections have been defined as follows:-
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC.
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 FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 36 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
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.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person my mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 37 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor, being a public servant or adding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offendor's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
49. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 38 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
50. There is no eyewitness of the alleged incident in the present case, though, there are some prosecution witnesses who reached at the spot of incident while the deceased was burning and their testimonies are relevant under Sec. 6 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as 'res-gestae'. The present case is based on the dying declarations of the deceased Kiran, medical evidence on record and the circumstantial evidence. Thus, to reach to a just decision this court has to appreciate the dying declarations of the deceased Kiran, medical evidence on record and the circumstantial evidence.
51. The complainant in the present case is deceased Kiran who could not be examined as prosecution witness as she expired during the investigation of the present case on 23.08.2011. Moreover, there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident in the present case. The FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of deceased Kiran, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A which was recorded by PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate, Civil Lines on 18.08.2011. The deceased had also given her two statements Ex. PW-23/DC & Ex. PW-23/DD to first IO/PW-23 SI Ranjeet Singh on 18.08.2011, prior to recording of the statment by the Executive Magistrate. All the three statements have been duly signed by deceased Kiran.
52. The question before this court is that as to whether the statements of deceased Kiran, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 39 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
PW-23/DC & Ex. PW-23/DD can be considered as dying declarations and if same are considered as dying declarations, whether the same are reliable and admissible as per the established principles of law. Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act deals with dying declaration which reads as under:-
"Section 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.
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 40 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
(2) xxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxx"
53. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with two kinds of statements i.e. (i) statement made by a person as to cause of his death and (ii) statement made by a person as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted into his death. Deceased Kiran in the present case sustained burn injuries on 17.08.2011 in the alleged incident due to which she expired in the hospital during her treatment on 23.08.2011. As per the postmortem report Ex. PW-2/A, the cause of death was 'septicemia consequent to infected burn injuries'. The present case is duly covered under both the situations i.e. the injuries sustained in the incident are the cause of death as well as indicate the circumstances which resulted in the death of deceased Kiran. Thus, the statements Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-23/DC & Ex. PW-23/DD falls within the purview of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and hence, are dying declarations.
54. In the present case there are three dying declarations. When there are multiple dying declarations of same person, these have to be read as one statement for the proper appreciation of evidence. The admissibility of the statements of deceased Kiran exhibted as Ex. PW-1/A, Ex. PW-23/DC & Ex. PW-23/DD are to be seen in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in landmark judgment of 'Mukesh and others Vs. State for NCT of Delhi and others cited as AIR 2017 SC 2161' has observed as under:-
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 41 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
"173. A dying declaration is an important piece of evidence which, if found veracious and voluntary by the court, could be the sole basis for conviction. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon even without any corroboration. However, the court, while admitting a dying declaration, must be vigilant towards the need for 'Compos Mentis Certificate' from a doctor as well as the absence of any kind of tutoring. In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0707/2002 : (2002) 6 SCC 710, the law relating to dying declaration was succinctly put in the following words:
3. ... A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite. In most cases, however, such statements are made orally before death ensues and is reduced to writing by someone like a Magistrate or a doctor or a police officer. When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a Magistrate absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a Magistrate, if available for recording the statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 42 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even without examination by the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and therefore the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise.
174. The legal position regarding the admissibility of a dying declaration is settled by this Court in several judgments. This Court, in Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi MANU/SC/0576/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 1, taking into consideration the earlier judgment of this Court in Paniben v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0346/1992 : (1992) 2 SCC 474 and another judgment of this Court in Panneerselvam v. State of Tamil Nadu FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 43 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
MANU/SC/7726/2008 : (2008) 17 SCC 190, has exhaustively laid down the following guidelines with respect to the admissibility of dying declaration:
22.(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court.
(ii) The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
(iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration.
(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.
(v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 44 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.
(ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.
(x) If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.
175. It is well settled that dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction provided that it is free from infirmities and satisfies various other tests. In a case where there are more than one dying declaration, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one and the other, the court has to examine the nature of inconsistencies as to whether they are material or not. The court has to examine the contents of the dying declarations in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances. In Shudhakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0590/2012 : (2012) FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 45 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
7 SCC 569, this Court, after referring to the landmark decisions in Laxman (supra) and Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0992/2010 : (2010) 14 SCC 444, has dealt with the issues arising out of multiple dying declarations and has gone to the extent of declining the first dying declaration and accepting the subsequent dying declarations. The Court found that the first dying declaration was not voluntary and not made by free will of the deceased; and the second and third dying declarations were voluntary and duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses and medical evidence. In the said case, the accused was married to the deceased whom he set ablaze by pouring kerosene in the matrimonial house itself. The smoke arising from the house attracted the neighbours who rushed the victim to the hospital where she recorded three statements before dying. In her first statement given to the Naib Tehsildar, she did not implicate her husband, but in the second and third statements, which were also recorded on the same day, she clearly stated that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The accused was convicted Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In this regard, the Court made the following observations:-
"21. Having referred to the law relating to dying declaration, now we may examine the issue that in cases involving multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, which of the various dying declarations FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 46 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
should be believed by the court and what are the principles governing such determination. This becomes important where the multiple dying declarations made by the deceased are either contradictory or are at variance with each other to a large extent. 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."
390. Multiple Dying Declarations: In cases where there are more than one dying declarations, the Court should consider whether they are consistent with each other. If there are inconsistencies, the nature of the inconsistencies must be examined as to whether they are material or not. In cases where there are more than one dying declaration, it is the duty of the Court to consider each one of them and satisfy itself as to the voluntariness and reliability of the declarations. Mere fact of recording multiple dying FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 47 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
declarations does not take away the importance of each individual declaration. Court has to examine the contents of dying declaration in the light of various surrounding facts and circumstances. This Court in a number of cases, where there were multiple dying declarations, consistent in material particulars not being contradictory to each other, has affirmed the conviction. [Vide Vithal v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/8618/2006 : (2006) 13 SCC 54].
397. When a dying declaration is recorded voluntarily, pursuant to a fitness report of a certified doctor, nothing much remains to be questioned unless, it is proved that the dying declaration was tainted with animosity and a result of tutoring. Especially, when there are multiple dying declarations minor variations does not affect the evidentiary value of other dying declarations whether recorded prior or subsequent thereto. In Ashabai and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0011/2013 : (2013) 2 SCC 224, it was held as under:-
"15. ....As rightly observed by the High Court, the law does not insist upon the corroboration of dying declaration before it can be accepted. The insistence of corroboration to a dying declaration is only a rule of prudence. When the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is voluntary, not tainted by tutoring FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 48 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
or animosity, and is not a product of the imagination of the declarant, in that event, there is no impediment in convicting the accused on the basis of such dying declaration. When there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated and assess independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of certain variation in the other."
55. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'Pawan Kumar Vs. State of HP cited as AIR 2017 SC 2459' has also reiterated the principles w.r.t. the admissibility of dying declaration. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :
"25. In Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi MANU/SC/0576/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 1, the Court, after noting earlier judgments, has laid the following guidelines with regard to admissibility of the dying declaration:-
22. The analysis of the above decisions clearly shows that:-
(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court.
(ii) The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 49 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
(iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration.
(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute Rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The Rule requiring corroboration is merely a Rule of prudence.
(v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.
(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.
(ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.
(x) If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 50 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration."
56. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Sandeep and ors. Vs. State of Haryana cited as MANU/SC/0645/2015, while convicting the accused on the basis of multiple dying declarations has observed as under :
"9. If there are more than one dying declarations then the court has also to scrutinise all the dying declarations to find out if each one of these passes the test of being trustworthy. The Court must further find out whether the different dying declarations are consistent with each other in material particulars before accepting and relying upon the same."
57. The first and foremost condition of the dying declaration is that the person making the dying declaration must be in fit state of mind at the time of making such statement. In the present case, the deceased Kiran was declared fit for statement at the time of recording of her first statement by PW-27 Inspector Ajay Yadav (then PSI), Ex PW-23/DC, which was attested by PW-23 Inspector Ranjeet Singh (then SI) and this fact has been specifically mentioned in her MLC Ex. PW-15/A. As per the MLC of deceased, Ex. PW-15/A, the patient (deceased) was fit for statement on 17.08.2011 at about 11:00 pm. PW-27 Inspector Ajay Kumar Yadav (the then PSI) in his testimony has FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 51 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
specifically mentioned that deceased Kiran was declared fit for making statement by the doctor and thereafter he recorded her statement Ex.PW-23/DC. Accused persons have taken the defence that in the statement, Ex. PW-23/DC, deceased had specifically stated that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:00 pm, she went to the house of accused Anubhav who did not talk to her and thereafter she went to the street and ablaze herself after pouring oil upon her. They have also taken the defence that even in her second statement, Ex. PW-23/DD given to the IO, the victim has not put any allegations against the accused persons. The accused persons have also taken the defence that the third statement of deceased was recorded by PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate on 18.08.2011 at about 02:30 pm and at that time the condition of victim had deteriorated and PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate had not taken the fitness certificate from the doctor before recording the statement of deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-1/A.
58. For the proper analysis of three dying declarations made by the deceased, it is necessary to examine the same minutely. The first dying declaration of deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-23/DC was recorded by PW-27 Inspector Ajay Yadav (the then PSI) which has been reproduced as under:-
बयान किया कि मैं पता उपरोक्त पर सह परिवार रहती हूँ व Sadanand College Alipur की student हूँ। आज दिनांक 17.08.2011 समय करीब 01:30 PM पर मैं शादी की बात करने के लिए मेरे friend Anubhav Kumar, R/o 25/142, Shakti Nagar, Delhi के घर गई जो समय करीब 03:00 PM तक मेरी शादी की बात उसके माता पिता के साथ अनुभव की FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 52 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
मौजूदगी मे हुई जो उन्होने हमारी शादी करने से मना कर दिया जिसके बाद समय करीब 08:00 PM पर मैं उसके घर दोबारा गई जो अनुभव ने मुझसे बात नही की तो मैने वही गली में अपने ऊपर तेल डालकर आग लगा ली जो आस-पास के लोगो ने मेरे कपड़ो पर लगी आग पर काबू किया। बयान सुन पढ़ लिया ठीक है।
The second dying declaration of deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-23/DD was also recorded by PW-27 Inspector Ajay Yadav (the then PSI) at the request of PW-4 Smt. Snehlata (mother of deceased). The second dying declaration of deceased Kiran recorded by PW-27 Inspector Ajay Yadav has been reproduced as under:-
बयान किया कि मैं पता उपरोक्त पर सह परिवार रहती हूँ व सरानंद College की student हूँ। आज दिनांक 17.08.2011 समय करीब 01:30 PM पर मैं अपने friend Anubhav Kumar, R/o 25/142, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07, 9910199857 से मिलने उसके घर पता उपरोक्त पर हमारी शादी के बारे मे गई थी जो मैने उसके माता पिता के साथ शादी के बाबत करीब 03:00 PM तक बात की जो अनुभव व उसके माता पिता ने शादी करने से मना कर दिया था, मेरे व अनुभव के संबंध करीब 06 साल से है इस दौरान हमारे कई बार शारीरिक संबंध भी बने है, समय करीब 08 PM पर आँज फिर मैं अनुभव से मिलने उसके घर गई तो अनुभव व उसके पिता ने मुझसे बात नही की जब आने लगी तो गली में अंधेरे में किसी व्यक्ति ने मुझपर तेल डालकर आग लगा दी जिसके कारण मैं वहाँ से भागने लगी तो आग तेजी से मेरे पहने हुए कपड़ो मे लग गई उसके बाद आस-पास के लोगो ने आकर मेरे कपड़ो पर लगी आग को काबू में किया। बयान सुन पढ़ लिया ठीक है।
The third dying declaration of deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate, Civil Lines, Delhi after the directions issued by the court in this regard. The third dying declaration of deceased Kiran recorded FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 53 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
by PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate, has been reproduced as under:-
मैं किरण यह बयान करती हूँ कि मैं 16.08.2011, को अनुभव के घर गई थी जहाँ मैने इसके पापा से शादी की बात की तो उन्होनो शादी के लिए मना कर दिया। मेरे साथ मेरे मम्मी पापा भी साथ थे। दिंनाक 17.08.2011, को मैं अके ली अनुभव के घर गई तो मैने पूछा की आप क्याँ मर्जी है शादी के बारे में तो उसने शादी करने से मना कर दिया। इसके बाद 02:30-03:00 बजे अपने घर आ गई। अनुभव भी घर के पास ही रहता है अत: मैं शाम 06-06:30 बजे घर से बाहर निकली तो मैने सोचा कि वह बाहर घूमने निकलता है तो मैं अके ले मे बात करूगी क्योकिं दोपहर में उसकी मम्मी साथ बैठी थी। अनुभव के घर के पीछे पार्किंग है, अनुभव ने मेरे से बात नही करी। पार्किंग में मेरे ऊपर किसी ने पेट्रोल डाला और आग लगा दी, मैने देखा तो अनुभव के मम्मी पापा थे। मैं वहाँ से भागी तो आग ज्यादा लग गई, पडोंसियों ने पानी वगैरह डालकर आग भूझाई लेकिन अनुभव के मम्मी पापा नही आए, बाद थोड़ी देर के लिए अनुभव के पापा आए और मुझे देख कर चले गए। मम्मी पापा के साथ अनुभव भी था। बयान सुन लिया और ठीक पाया।
59. Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagabhushan Vs. State of Karnataka cited as (2021) 5 SCC 222 held that each dying declaration has to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. The court has to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself as to one of them or which of them reflects the true state of affairs, and accordingly, adjudicate the matter. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in State of UP Vs. Veerpal cited as (2022) 4 SCC 741 held that merely because there are two/multiple dying declarations, all the dying declarations are not to be rejected. In such a situation, case must be decided on the facts of each case and the court will not be FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 54 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
relieved of its duty to carefully examine the entirety of the material on record as also the circumstances surrounding the making of different dying declarations.
60. In the first dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DC, deceased Kiran stated that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:00 pm, she went to the house of accused Anubhav who did not talk to her and thereafter she poured oil upon herself and ablazed herself. It is pertinent to mention that deceased Kiran was in fit state of mind at the time of recording of her first dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DC. Thus, in the first dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DC, deceased Kiran had not put any allegations against the accused persons and hence the first dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DC cannot be read against the accused persons.
61. In her second dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DD, deceased Kiran stated that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:00 pm, she went to the house of accused Anubhav and the father of Anubhav (accused Rajpal) did not talk to her and when she was coming back in the street, someone in the dark, put oil upon her and ablazed her. Thus, deceased Kiran had improved her version at the time of recording of her second dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DD. Accused persons have taken the defence that the second dying declaration of deceased Kiran was recorded by the IO after her mother and brother met her and she was tutored by them while third statement of deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-1/A was recorded on 18.08.2011 at about 02:30 pm by Executive Magistrate and before that PW-3 Sh. Satyapal Singh (father of FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 55 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
deceased) and PW-4 Smt. Snehlata (mother of deceased) had met her several times and they had tutored her. PW-23 Inspector Ranjeet Singh deposed that he cannot point out any document from the judicial file or the police file to show as to why and under what circumstances or reason, the second statement of victim, Ex. PW-23/DD was recorded. PW-27 Inspector Ajay Kumar Yadav (the then PSI) has specifically deposed that after sometime, mother of injured (deceased Kiran) told him that injured wanted to make one more statement in presence of SHO and thereafter on direction of SHO, he recorded second statement of deceased Kiran exhibited as Ex. PW-23/DD. It is pertinent to mention that even deceased Kiran in her second statement, Ex. PW-23/DD has not explained as to why she had made the second statement to the police. PW-4 Smt. Snehlata (mother of deceased Kiran) deposed that she along with her son went to hospital, where they found Kiran in a dressing room. She further deposed that thereafter Kiran narrated her about the incident. She further deposed that her husband also reached the hospital and Kiran also told the same to her husband. She also deposed that her husband also met her daughter and spoke to her at length for a quite long time. In these circumstances, the tutoring of deceased by PW-3 Sh. Satyapal and PW-4 Smt. Snehlata cannot be ruled out.
62. PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate had recorded the third statement of deceased, Ex. PW-1/A. He denied the suggestion that deceased Kiran was not in a position to make FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 56 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
statement and same was fabricated by him at the behest of her parents. PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate did not depose that he obtained fitness certificate from the concerned doctor before recording the statement of deceased Kiran. PW-23 Inspector Rajeet Singh (the then SI) deposed that since there were variations in the statements of injured Kiran, the matter was discussed with Senior Officers, who instructed him to get recorded the statement of injured Kiran through Executive Magistrate. The charge-sheet in the present case has been prepared by PW-25 Inspector Kanwar Sain. In the charge-sheet, it has been specifically mentioned by PW-25 Inspector Kanwar Sain that he discussed the matter with SHO, on which SHO and Inspector Dinesh Sharma told that the deceased was saying something in one statement and something else in second statement and she was burnt upto 70% who can die at any time and hence her statement should be got recorded through the SDM. PW-23 Inspector Ranjeet Singh in his cross-examination has specifically deposed that the health condition of victim was not good and it had deteriorated. From the contents of charge- sheet and statement of PW-23 Inspector Ranjeet Singh, it is clear that the medical condition of deceased Kiran was deteriorating and hence her statement was got recorded from the Executive Magistrate. Since the third statement of the deceased was recorded after more than 12 hours of recording of her first statement and her condition was also deteriorating, it was necessary for PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate to obtain fitness certificate from the doctor before recording the FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 57 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
statement of deceased, Ex. PW-1/A. PW-12 Dr. Kulbhushan who along with PW-2 Dr. Anand Pawar conducted the postmortem of deceased deposed that total area of burns was approximately 80% of the total body surface. PW-15 Dr. Varsha Gupta in her cross- examination deposed that after examining the status of patient and speaking to the patient, the status as to whether the patient is fit for statement or not is recorded. PW-23 Inspector Ranjeet Singh deposed that in his presence, he had not seen Mr. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate, preparing any document to the effect that he made a request to the doctor at LNJP Hospital to examine the health condition of victim and give opinion as to whether she was fit to give statement before him. He also deposed that in his presence the doctor had not examined the victim or had given any opinion about her fitness to give statement. He also deposed that he had not recorded the statement of doctor on 18.08.2011 regarding the examination of victim and giving of opinion that victim was fit for statement prior to recording of her statement, Ex. PW-1/A. PW-4 Smt. Snehlata (mother of deceased) deposed that the Executive Magistrate did not made any inquiry from the doctors in her presence prior to entering into the dressing room nor he made any inquiry from the doctors after coming out of dressing room. None of the doctors i.e. PW-2 Dr. Anand Pawar, PW-12 Dr. Kulbhushan, PW-15 Dr. Varsha Gupta & PW-19 Dr. Arvind Mohan have deposed that PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate had obtained fitness certificate from the doctor before recording the statement of deceased Kiran. There is no document on record to show that deceased Kiran was fit for FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 58 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
statement on 18.08.2011 at about 02:30 pm before the Executive Magistrate recorded her statement. Thus, from the facts, it is clear that PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-1/A, without obtaining fitness certificate for making statement from the doctor. On the appreciation of three dying declarations of deceased Kiran, scrutinizing the medical documents of deceased on record and analysis of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and applying the law laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovesaid judgments, following facts have come on record:-
(a). Deceased Kiran was in fit state of mind at the time of making of her first statement to PW-27 Inspector Ajay Kumar Yadav (the then SI) but since no fitness certificate was obtained before recording her third statement, Ex. PW-1/A by PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate, it is doubtful whether deceased was in fit state of mind or not at that time.
(b). In her first statement, Ex. PW-23/DC, deceased Kiran stated that she herself had ablazed her by pouring oil upon her while in her second statement, Ex.
PW-23/DD, deceased stated that there was dark in the street and some unknown person poured oil upon her and ablazed her. In her third statement, Ex. PW-1/A, deceased Kiran stated that someone poured oil upon her and ablazed her and thereafter she saw that they were the parents of accused Anubhav and when she FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 59 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
ran away from there, the fire enhanced and the neighbours doused the fire by putting water etc. and after sometime, parents of Anubhav came there and Anubhav was also with them. Thus, there are material contradictions in all the three dying declarations of the deceased Kiran. In these circumstances, the dying declarations of deceased Kiran cannot be said to be clear, cogent and trustworthy.
(c). The second dying declaration of deceased Kiran, Ex.
PW-23/DD was recorded after she met with her parents and brother and her second dying declaration was recorded at request of her mother and in these circumstances, coupled with the fact that the deceased had changed her version thrice, it cannot be said that the dying declarations were voluntary and were not suffering from tutoring.
(d). In the first dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DC, deceased Kiran stated that the alleged incident took place in the street. Similarly, in her second dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DD, deceased Kiran stated that the alleged incident took place in the street. However, in her third dying declaration, Ex. PW-1/A, recorded by PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal, Executive Magistrate, deceased Kiran stated that the alleged incident took place in the parking situated in the back side of house of accused Anubhav. PW-6 Inspector FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 60 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
Manohar Lal has proved the scaled site plan, Ex. PW-6/A and hence deposed that in the scaled site plan, the exact place of incident and the other material aspect pertaining to the incident have been specifically shown. In the scaled site plan, Ex. PW-6/A, at point 'A', empty bottle was lying, at point 'B' some petrol and water were lying, at point 'C' burnt clothes were lying and at points 'D' & 'E', there were electric poles having lighted mercury bulbs. All the abovesaid points are of the street. The house of accused persons having no. 25/131 is also shown in scaled site plan, Ex. PW6/A, which is situated at a distance from the said points. The showing of electric poles with lighted mercury bulbs at points 'D' & 'E' in the scaled site plan Ex. PW-6/A has made it clear that there was not dark in the street as stated by deceased in her second dying declaration, Ex. PW-23/DD. PW-23 Inspector Ranjeet Singh has specifically deposed that the incident took place on back lane of property bearing no. 25/131. PW-8 Inspector Rajesh Malhotra deposed that the guards were staying in a room which were situtated in the stlilt parking of the building (where accused persons were residing) and he had examined the inhabitants of the building where accused persons were residing but he did not record their statement since nothing material was told by them or by the guard. PW-16 FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 61 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
Inspector Devender, In-charge, Mobile Crime Team deposed that he along with his team reached at the spot of incident i.e. beside electric pole no. 417-42- 3/3/1, opposite H. No. 25/132, Shakti Nagar, where he inspected scene of crime. Similarly, PW-20 Ct. Ravinder, has also deposed that the spot of incident was opposite to 25/132, Shakti Nagar and he has proved the photographs of the spot of incident, Ex. PX-1 to Ex. PX-7 along with its negatives, Ex. PX-8. Similarly, PW-22 Retd. SI Krishan Lal, In-charge, PCR Van has also deposed about the spot of incident in the street. Thus, it has come on record that the alleged incident took place in the street and not in the parking of house of accused persons and hence the third dying declaration of deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-1/A is not reliable with respect to the spot of incident.
(e). All the three dying declarations of the deceased Kiran are suffering from material contradictions and these have not been corroborated by any material evidence as none of the prosecution witness had seen any of the accused at spot of incident at the time of incident.
63. On the basis of abovesaid analysis and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgments titled as 'Mukesh & Ors. (supra)', 'Pawan Kumar (supra)', 'Sandeep & Ors. (supra)', Nagabhushan (Supra) and Veerpal FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 62 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
(Supra), this court is of considered opinion that all the three dying declarations of the deceased Kiran are suffering from material contradictions in which the tutoring cannot be ruled out, the medical fitness of deceased before making statement, Ex. PW-1/A is doubtful, the voluntariness for making statement, Ex. PW-1/A is also doubtful and the dying declarations made by the deceased are not clear, cogent and trustworthy and have not been corroborated by the other material evidence on record and hence cannot be relied upon. Since, the dying declarations made by the deceased in the present case cannot be the sole basis for the conviction of accused persons, this court has to analyze the other evidence produced by the prosecution.
64. The prosecution has examined the neighbours of accused persons, who reached at the spot of incident while deceased was burning in the street. PW-9 Smt. Madhu Gupta deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:00-08:30 pm, she was present in her house and was preparing meal and at that time she heard a commotion and loud noise coming from outside of her house. She further deposed that she came out and found that one person was engulfed in fire and four-five persons including one Subhash Gupta were trying to blow off the fire. She further deposed that she immediately went into her house and called the police at 100 number from her landline telephone. She further deposed that she brought blanket and water bucket from her house to put off the fire. She further deposed that when the fire of that person was doused, she came to know that the person who was ablazed, was FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 63 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
a woman. PW-9 Smt. Madhur Gupta, who was neighbour of accused persons has not deposed that she had seen any of the accused persons at the spot of incident at the time of incident. Similarly, PW-32 Sh. Subhash Gupta deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 08:00 pm, he was standing outside his shop at H. No. 26/65, Shakti Nagar, Delhi then he heard cries of a lady coming from the back side of H. No. 25/132, Shakti Nagar and thought that some stray dogs might have bitten the lady. He further deposed that he ran there and saw a girl in flames. He further deposed that he caught hold of her garments from the back side, torn the same and some of the public person covered her with bed sheet. He further deposed that he also sustained some burn injury in that episode. He also deposed that some of the public person poured water upon the girl to douse the fire. He further deposed that police was called which removed the said girl to hospital. He also deposed that he knew accused Rajpal, Geeta and Anubhav Rana being his neighbours. He has also not deposed that he had seen any of the accused at the spot of incident. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed about the presence of accused persons at the spot of incident at the time of incident. In these circumstances, accused persons cannot be connected with the commission of offence.
65. Accused persons have taken the defence that the deceased had committed suicide by pouring oil/petrol upon her and by putting herself in ablaze. PW-11 Sh. Mandeep Singh deposed that 17.08.2011 at about 07:45 pm, he left house along with his FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 64 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
daughter Aanya, aged about three years, in a pram and he was going to the GTK Main Road. He further deposed that when he took right turn towards a gali, he saw one girl standing there who was holding a small polythene bag and one plastic bottle containing yellow colour liquid. He further deposed that thereafter he entered into the gali, again took right turn towards another gali as per his routine and then again took right turn to one gali for going to his home and he again saw the same girl standing near H. No. 25/122, Shakti Nagar holding the same polythene bag and bottle. He further deposed that he saw some persons running and heard loud noses coming from the gali behind H. No. 25/131 and 25/132. He further deposed that he left his child inside his house and rushed to the gali where he found a crowd gathered. He further deposed that police was also present there and the same girl whom he saw earlier holding polythene bag and bottle containing yellow liquid was found lying wrapped in bed sheet. Thus, as per the version of PW-11 Sh. Mandeep, the deceased was present at the spot of incident alone and at that time she was having polythene bag and one plastic bottle containing yellow colour liquid, which means that the deceased was in possession of inflaming material i.e. petrol or oil and she was not going somewhere and was present at a particular point, where the alleged incident took place. PW-16 Inspector Devender, In-charge, Mobile Crime Team deposed that when he reached at the spot of incident, he saw one plastic pet bottle having smell of petrol. PW-23 Inspector Ranjeet Singh has proved the seizure memo of pet bottle and other articles found at FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 65 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
the spot of incident as Ex. PW-23/C. On the analysis of statement of PW-11 Sh. Mandeep and the first dying declaration made by the deceased Kiran, Ex. PW-23/DC, in fit state of mind, the self immolation by the deceased by pouring petrol on herself cannot be ruled out.
66. The first information regarding the incident in the present case was received at the PS Roop Nagar vide DD No. 30A, Ex. PW-14/A. DD No. 30A, received at the PS Roop Nagar at 08:23 pm on 17.08.2011, reads as under:-
"25/122, Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar, ek ladke ne apne aap ko aag laga li hai."
Just after that at about 08:35 pm, another call regarding the same incident was also received at the PS Roop Nagar for which DD No. 31A, Ex. PW-14/B was recorded. The said DD reads as under:-
"H. No. 25/131, Aggarwal Marg, Gaddo ki market ke paas, Shakti Nagar, ek lady ne aag laga li hai."
The abovesaid DD entries do not talk about the involvement of any other person in putting fire upon the victim and rather these DD entries indicate that deceased Kiran had ablazed herself. PW-14 ASI Raman Kumar has proved DD No. 30A & 31A, exhibited as Ex. PW-14/A & Ex. PW-14/B. PW-14 ASI Raman Kumar deposed that on 17.08.2011 he was posted at PS Roop Nagar as Duty Officer and on that day at about 08:25 pm, an information was received that one person had set himself on fire at Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar. He also deposed that on FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 66 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
17.08.2011 at about 08:35 pm another information was received through PCR that one lady had set herself on fire near Gaddo ki Market, Shakti Nagar. Similarly, PW-10 WCt. Sheela has proved the PCR form along with certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex. PW-10/A & Ex. PW-10/B. She deposed that on 17.08.2011, she was posted at CPCR, PHQ, Delhi. She further deposed that on that day at about 08:18 pm, a call was received from telephone no. 23844412 that one person was ablazed near 25/1122, Shakti Nagar, Roop Nagar, Delhi. The PCR form, Ex. PW-10/A reads as under:-
"Shakti Ngr. Roop Ngr. yaha par ek ladke ne apne aap ko aag laga li h."
Similarly, PW-22 Retd. ASI Krishan Lal deposed that on 17.08.2011, he was posted as In-charge PCR Van Sugar-45 along with Ct. Mahender and Ct. Yogender. He further deposed that at about 08:20 pm, he had received information from Control Room that a boy set himself on fire at H. No. 25/1122, Shakti Nagar. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, at about 08:22 pm, he had received information from Control Room that one girl had set herself on fire at H. No. 25/131, Shakti Nagar. He further deposed he reached at the spot within five minutes, where he came to know that both the information regarding the said incident was of one incident. He further deposed that one burnt girl was found at the spot who was covered with bed-sheet and she was crying. In his cross-examination, PW-22 Retd. ASI Krishan Lal admitted that in his statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC on 03.10.2011, he had stated to the IO 'logo ne bataya FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 67 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
ki ladki ne apne aap ko aag laga li hai'. Similarly, PW-8 Inspector Rajesh Malhotra admitted that he had received the information vide DD No. 31A, dated 17.08.2011 in which it was informed that 'ek ladki ne aag laga li hai'. He also admitted that the relevant call on which DD No. 31A was recorded was made from mobile phone no. 7838380737 which belonged to PW Sh. Jasvinder Singh. PW-8 Inspector Rajesh Malhotra admitted that as per log entry, Ex. PW-8/DA of 08:32 pm dated 17.08.2011, it was recorded by the PCR officials that 'ek ladki ne apne app ko aag laga li thi jo logo ne bujha diya hai, majroob hai, lekar aspatal ja rahe hai, mauka par beat staff aur SHO sahab hai'. Similarly, PW-23 Inspector Ranjeet Singh admitted that document Ex. PW-8/DA was wireless log and the diary was prepared by PCR team. Thus, as per the contents of DD entries no. 30A & 31A, Ex. PW-14/A & Ex. PW-14/B, PCR form, Ex. PW-10/A, PCR log diary, Ex. PW-8/DA and the statement of prosecution witnesses, it has come on record that the deceased had put herself on fire. None of the document indicate that some other persons were involved in the incident. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the accused persons had put the deceased on fire on they were present at the spot of incident at the time of incident. In these circumstances, accused persons cannot be connected to the commission of offence in the present case.
67. PW-3 Sh. Satyapal Singh (father of deceased) and PW-4 Mrs. Snehlata (mother of deceased) have deposed that deceased FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 68 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
Kiran and accused Anubhav were in love with each other. They also deposed that on 16.08.2011 at about 10:00 pm, accused Geeta and Rajpal came to their house and told that accused Anubhav and deceased Kiran were in love with each other and they had developed physical relations. They further deposed that accused Rajpal and Geeta refused to get them married. They further deposed that at that time, accused Anubhav said that he and Kiran would talk about the matter on next day. They also deposed about the alleged incident. PW-3 Sh. Satyapal Singh & PW-4 Mrs. Snehlata came to know about the love affair of accused Anubhav and deceased Kiran through accused Rajpal and Geeta and hence their evidence in this regard is hearsay in nature which is not admissible, as per the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, no corroborating evidence in form of love letter, text message or photograph has been produced by the prosecution to corroborate the versions of PW-3 Sh. Satyapal & PW-4 Mrs. Snehlata. There are material contradictions in the dying declarations of deceased, Ex. PW-23/DC, Ex. PW-23/DD, PW-1/A and the testimonies of PW-3 Sh. Satyapal & PW-4 Mrs. Snehlata with respect to the spot of incident, time of incident and the sequence of events. This raises serious doubts on the case of the prosecution.
68. Accused persons have taken the defence that on 15.08.2011, deceased Kiran had attempted to commit suicide by jumping from the roof of their house and they had informed the police in this regard but the police did not take any action. To FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 69 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
prove their defence, accused persons have examined DW-2 Rted. SI Preet Pal. DW-2 Retd. SI Preet Pal deposed that on 17.08.2011 at about 14:00 pm, vide DD No. 16A, a complaint Ex. PW-8/DB was marked to him for inquiry. He admitted that this complaint was submitted by accused Rajpal in PS Roop Nagar and this complaint was made against Kiran Chaudhary (deceased). As per the contents of DD No. 16A, Ex. PW-8/DB, accused Rajpal had made complaint to SHO PS Roop Nagar in which he had stated that on 15.08.2011 at about 08:30 pm, when his family was watching the flag hosting from Red Fort on TV, at that time deceased Kiran went to their room and threatened to jump from there and they were informed about the same by one passerby. Thereafter, accused Rajpal and Geeta went to the roof of their house and sent the deceased to her house. It is pertinent to mention that the said complaint was made on 17.08.2011 at about 02:00 pm and DD No. 16A was registered at the PS Roop Nagar in this regard and the alleged incident took place on that day at about 08:00 pm, i.e. about six hours after the making of the said complaint. Prima-facie it seems that Police officials of PS Roop Nagar failed to perform their duties through which the incident could have been averted. Thus, through this defence accused persons have been successful in putting a dent on the prosecution story.
69. In the present case, charges under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC have been framed against the accused persons which pertains to commission of murder by the accused persons in FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 70 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
furtherance of their common intention. Prosecution has failed to proved the ingredient of offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of appreciation of evidence available on record, it seems that the deceased Kiran had put herself on fire due to which she expired in the hospital after six days. In the present case, no alternative charge under Sec. 306 IPC has been framed against the accused persons. Sec. 306 IPC is not a minor offence to the offence of Sec. 302 IPC and hence Sec. 222 Cr.PC is not applicable in the present case and this court does not have any power to substitute Sec. 306 IPC in place of Sec. 302 IPC at the stage of judgment. Moreover, no evidence with respect to abatement to suicide for the commission of offence punishable under Sec. 306 IPC has been brought on record by the prosecution nor the prosecution has pressed for invoking Sec. 306 IPC during the trial. In these circumstances, accused persons cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 IPC also.
70. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 71 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
71. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that:-
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 72 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 73 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
72. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
73. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 74 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
74. Due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW-3 Sh. Satyapal & PW-4 Smt. Snehlata being witnesses of hearsay evidence, coupled with the contradictory versions of deceased in three dying declarations, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story. The versions of PW-3 Sh. Satyapal & PW-4 Smt. Snehlata are not natural one. The things appears to have not happened in the manner these have been projected. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimonies of PW-3 Sh. Satyapal & PW-4 Smt. Snehlata are not clear, cogent, credible and trustworthy and same are not corroborated by other material evidence. The testimonies of PW-3 Sh. Satyapal & PW-4 Smt. Snehlata and the dying declarations of deceased Kiran in the present case cannot be said to be of sterling quality to secure the conviction of the accused persons.
75. It is established principle of law that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be accepted. The benefit of doubt must always go to the accused as the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
76. The Hon'ble Apex court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1209 has held as follows:
"The timetested rule in that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 75 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
77. In yet another decision in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Veer Singh and Another reported in 2007(6) Supreme 164 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not."
FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 76 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.
78. In the present case, due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW-3 Sh. Satyapal & PW-4 Smt. Snehlata being witnesses of hearsay evidence, coupled with the contradictory versions of deceased in three dying declarations, non-examination of any independent eyewitness, non-collection of any relevant CCTV footage and the defence taken by the accused persons through DD No. 16A, serious doubts have been created upon the prosecution story and two views are possible in this case and hence the benefit of the same must go to the accused persons.
79. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC, against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
80. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused persons namely Rajpal, Geeta & Anubhav Rana are hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC.
81. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA Date: KHARTA on 20th day of September, 2025 2025.09.20 15:06:10 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:20.09.2025 FIR No. 118/2011, PS: Roop Nagar, Page No. 77 of 77 State Vs. Rajpal & Ors.