Delhi District Court
State vs Arvind Chaudhary on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh
Sessions Case No. 32/2017
CNR No. DLSW01-000547-2017
FIR No. : 699/2016
Police Station : Uttam Nagar
Under Section : 302 IPC
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Arvind Choudhary,
S/o Sh. Ram Sagar Chaudhary,
R/o H. No. B-373, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi
Date of institution : 24.12.2016
Date of conclusion of : 27.01.2026
arguments
Date of judgment : 07.02.2026
Decision : Accused Arvind Choudhary is
acquitted for the offence
punishable U/s 302 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Arvind Choudhary was sent up to face trial in the instant case FIR no. 699/2016, PS Uttam Nagar for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC on the allegations that on 19.09.2016, at about 5.00 am, at House no. B-373, Mohan State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 1 of 24 Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, he committed the murder of his wife Smt. Pooja by setting her ablaze after pouring petrol on her.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as gleaned from the charge-sheet is that on 19.09.2016, on receipt of DD no. 49 A, SI Pratap Singh alongwith Ct. Ramotar reached at Safdarjung Hospital where victim Ms. Pooja (since deceased) was found admitted in the Burn Ward vide MLC no. 7546/16 and was declared fit was statement by the treating doctor. SI Pratap Singh intimated the concerned Executive Magistrate Mr. Bansi Dhar Meena who reached at the Safdarjung Hospital and recorded the statement of victim Ms. Pooja, wherein she alleged that her husband Arvind Choudhary had set her ablaze after pouring petrol on her body and accused her husband Arvind Choudhary and sister in law (jethani) Ms. Poonam for attempting to kill her by setting her in fire. On the basis of the statement of victim Ms. Pooja, the present FIR was lodged at PS Uttam Nagar and further investigation was marked to SI Pratap Singh who intimated the Crime Team and got the spot inspected and photographed from the Crime Team. The IO seized the exhibits i.e. pieces of burnt clothes from the spot and recorded the statement of a spot witness Mr. Tuntun Sahni and also prepared site plan at his instance.
3. During the course of investigation, DD no. 18 A dated 27.09.2016 regarding death of victim Ms. Pooja was received at PS Uttam Nagar, whereupon the concerned Executive State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 2 of 24 Magistrate and the father of the victim were intimated. IO SI Pratap reached at Safdarjung Hospital where he recorded the statement of father and brother of the deceased. The then Executive Magistrate also reached at the hospital and after identification of the deadbody of the deceased got her post mortem conducted. Section 302 IPC was added in the present case and further investigation was marked to Inspector Raman Kumar.
4. During the course of investigation, Inspector Raman Kumar arrested accused Arvind Chodhary and recorded his disclosure statement. Accused Arvind Chodhary got recovered a plastic dabba from his house stating that it was the same dabba from which he had poured petrol on the deceased. The plastic dabba (cane) was seized in the present case. IO collected the Post Mortem Report, got the exhibits examined from FSL Rohini, recorded the statements of witnesses and collected relevant documents.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
6. In light of the police report and the documents filed alongwith the same, cognizance was taken vide order dated 24.12.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
7. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.PC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 09.01.2017, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.
State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 3 of 24
8. Vide order dated 30.05.2017, accused Arvind Choudhary was charged for commission of offence punishable U/s 302 IPC.
9. The case was received by way of transfer by this Court on 29.11.2022.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
10. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as nineteen (19) witnesses.
11. PW-1 ASI Rajender Prasad Meena is the Duty Officer who had registered the FIR of the present case and also made his endorsement on the rukka.
12. PW-2 Sh. Ramshakal and PW-3 Mr. Rajo Sahni are the brother and father of deceased Ms. Pooja. Their testimonies in detail shall be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
13. PW-4 Mr. Tuntun Sahani, as per the case of prosecution is a witness of the spot. It is, however, a matter of record that he has not supported the case of prosecution in this regard. His testimony in detail shall also be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
14. PW-5 Dr. Vikas had prepared the death summary of deceased Ms. Pooja.
15. PW-6 SI Rampal is the Incharge Crime Team, who had inspected the spot on being requisitioned by the IO and prepared his report.
16. PW-7 Sh. Bansi Dhar Meena is the then Executive Magistrate who had recorded the statement of deceased Ms. State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 4 of 24 Pooja and also conducted the inquest proceedings.
17. PW-8 Dr. Jatin had examined the deceased Ms. Pooja and had prepared her MLC.
18. PW-9 ASI Mukesh is the concerned MHC(M) with whom the case property was deposited at on different dates and he had made the relevant entries in the malkhana register.
19. PW-10 Ct. Satish Kumar is the photographer who had clicked the photographs of the spot.
20. PW-11 Dr. Sarvesh Tandon had conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased.
21. PW-12 ASI Surjeet Singh is the duty officer who had recorded DD no. 49 A dt. 19.08.2016 and DD no. 18A dt. 27.09.2016.
22. PW-13 ASI Abhey Raj had deposited the exhibits of this case at FSL Rohini.
23. PW-14 Sh. Ramesh Kumar is the draughtsman who had prepared the scaled site plan of the spot.
24. PW-15 Sh. Jitender Kumar is the Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) who had examined the exhibits of this case at FSL Rohini and had given his report.
25. PW-16 HC Umesh Kumar had joined the investigation of this case with the IO on 29.09.2016 at the time of arrest of accused Arvind Choudhary.
26. PW-17 Inspector Pratap Singh is the initial IO of this case. He deposed about the investigation carried out by him State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 5 of 24 during the period he remained the investigating officer in the present case.
27. PW-18 Inspector Raman Kumar Singh is the subsequent investigating officer of the present case. He also deposed about the investigation carried out by him in the present case and filed the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation.
28. PW-19 Dr. Vaddi Suman Babu had declared the victim 'fit for statement' on 19.09.2016.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
29. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him and claimed innocence. The accused stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS
30. It has been argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that all none of the prosecution witnesses examined by the State has deposed anything against the accused and thus, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. It is further contended that the father and brother of the deceased have deposed in the Court that the victim had told them that she had caught fire while cooking food and therefore, the dying declaration of the deceased being relied upon by the State, is of non consequence. It is further asserted that the only independent witness of the spot has not supported the case of prosecution. It is State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 6 of 24 stated that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused and therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted.
31. On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the victim in her statement given to the then Executive Magistrate had specifically stated that her husband Arvind Choudhary had set her ablaze after pouring petrol on her and the said Dying Declaration stands duly proved on record. It is stated that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC for committing the murder of his wife.
32. The record has been carefully perused. The respective submissions of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused have been heard and duly considered.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Charge for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC
33. In order to prove the charge against the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution was not only required to prove that the deceased Ms. Pooja was killed on the alleged date, time and place and in the manner as alleged, but also that it was the accused Arvind Choudhary who had caused her death by pouring petrol upon her and setting her on fire.
34. As per the case of prosecution, the incident of fire State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 7 of 24 took place inside the rented house/room of accused Arvind Choudhary where he used to reside with his wife deceased Ms. Pooja. The prosecution has not claimed that anyone had seen accused Arvind Choudhary pouring petrol over deceased Ms. Pooja and setting her on fire.
35. As per the case set up by the prosecution, after the incident, one Mr. Phul Kumar (jeth of the injured) got her admitted at Safdarjung Hospital where on being declared fit for statement, her statement was recorded by the then Executive Magistrate, wherein she stated that her husband had poured petrol on her and had set her on fire. Since the injured Ms. Pooja expired during investigation, the said statement of deceased Ms. Pooja is being referred to an relied upon by the prosecution as her 'Dying Declaration'.
36. Needless to say that 'Dying declarations' are admissible in evidence. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with 'dying declaration' and it reads as follows :-
"32. Cases in which statement of relevant facts by the 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 State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 8 of 24 which the cause of that person's death comes into question.'
37. 'Dying Declaration' is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that oral evidence must be direct. The reason why 'Dying Declarations' are weighed differently is because it is believed that someone who is dying or is under the threat of immediate death is least likely to give a false, fabricated or tutored statement.
38. In the case of Uka Ram vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 1814, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
"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 under the circumstances enumerated under sub-sections (1) to (8) of Section 32 of the Act. When the statement is made by a person as to 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 persons death comes into question is admissible in evidence being relevant whether the person 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. Such statements in law are compendiously called dying declarations. The admissibility of the dying declaration rests upon the principle that a sense of impending death produces in a mans mind the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man under oath - Nemo moriturus praesumuntur mentiri. Such statements are admitted, upon consideration that their declarations State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 9 of 24 made in extremity, when the maker is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. The principle on which the dying declarations are admitted in evidence, is based upon the legal maxim Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire i.e., a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. It has always to be kept in mind that though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, yet it is worthwhile to note that as the maker of the statement is not subjected to cross- examination, it is essential for the court to insist that dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The court is obliged to rule out the possibility of the statement being the result of either tutoring, prompting or vindictive or product of imagination. Before relying upon a dying declaration, the court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. Once the court is satisfied that the dying declaration was true, voluntary and not influenced by any extraneous consideration, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration as rule requiring corroboration is not a rule of law but only a rule of prudence."
39. Thus, it is well settled that though dying declarations are entitled to great weight, it is of utmost importance to note that the maker of the dying declaration cannot be subjected to cross- examination and therefore, it is incumbent upon the Court to see that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The Courts have to rule out all the possibilities of the 'dying declaration' being a result of tutoring, prompting or a product of mere imagination. The Courts also have to ensure that the person/deceased who had made the State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 10 of 24 'dying declaration' was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the said statement. The Court on being satisfied that the dying declaration was a true description of the events, was voluntary and was not influenced, can convict the accused solely on the basis of the dying declaration, even if there is no corroboration as corroboration is not a rule of law but only a rule of prudence.
40. Adverting to the peculiar facts of the present case, there are multiple versions of the deceased on record which were allegedly given by her after the incident prior to her death.
41. To begin with, as per the case of prosecution, Sh. Bansidhar Meena, the then Executive Magistrate recorded the statement of victim/injured Ms. Pooja (since deceased) at the hospital. The said statement of Ms. Pooja being relied upon by the prosecution as 'dying declaration' reads as under : -
"बयान किया है की मैं पता उपरोक्त पर सह-परिवार रहती हूँ मेरी शादी को 7 वर्ष हो गए है और मेरे दो बच्चे है जिनका नाम विकास उम्र 6 साल तथा साक्षी उम्र 1½ वर्ष है/ मेरा पति फल बेचता है मेरी जेठानी पूनम w/o फूल कुमार मेरे पड़ोस में रहती है तथा दो दिन पहले मेरी और पूनम की कहासूनी हो गई थी और पूनम ने मुझे कहा की यहाँ से मकान खली करके दस ू री जगह चले जाहो जिस बात को मैंने अपने पति को बताया तो उसने कहा ठीक है परन्तु मेरे पति ने कहा की यदि तेरी बात झूठी हुई तो मैं तेरे को पैट्रोल डाल कर जला दगं ू ा और आज सुबह दिनांक 19-09-16 को करीब 5 बजे मेरे पति ने मेरी जिठानी पूनम को बुलाया और उससे पूछा की तुमने पूजा को मकान खाली करने को कहा था, तो मेरी जिठानी पूनम ने (झूठ) बोला और साफ़ मन कर दिया की मैंने तो ऐसा नहीं कहा है, तब मेरे पति ने गुस्से में आकर नीचे घर में खड़ी स्कूटी से बाल्टी में पेट्रोल निकाल कर मेरे ऊपर डाल दिया तथा माचिस की तिल्ली जला कर मेरे को आग लगा दी, जब मै चिल्लाई तो पड़ोस किरायेदार टु नटु न व जेठ फूल कुमार ने मुझे बचाया और आग बुजाकार मेरे जेठ फूल कुमार hospital लेकर आया, मेरे पति ने मुझे जान से मारने की नियत से मेरे पर पैट्रोल डाल कर जलाया है, जिसमे मेरे जिठानी पूनम State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 11 of 24 w/o फूल कुमार भी सामील है/ जिनके खिलाफ उचीत कानूनी कार्यवाही की जाये। ब्यान सुन लिया, समझ लिया है ठीक है/"
42. At the outset, it is relevant to note that in the aforesaid 'dying declaration', the deceased has claimed that the accused had poured petrol on her after taking out the petrol from their scooty in a bucket, however, no such balti has been recovered in the instant case and in fact, as per the case of prosecution, the accused had poured the petrol on the victim from a plastic dabba and the said dabba, as per the case of prosecution, was recovered at the instance of the accused. This fact shall be further dealt in detail in the later part of this judgment.
43. Talking about the 'dying declaration', as per the case of prosecution, on 21.09.2016, the deceased had also told her brother and father that it was the accused who had set her on fire and the statements of father and brother of the deceased in this regard were recorded by the IO. Mr. Ramshakal, brother of deceased was examined in the Court as PW-2. While appearing in the witness box, PW-2 stated that on 21.09.2016, he alongwith his father Mr. Rajo Sahani reached Safdarjung Hospital, where Pooja was found under treatment and that on asking she told that she had caught fire while preparing food. Similarly, Mr. Rajo Sahani, father of deceased Ms. Pooja, while appearing in the witness box as PW-3 deposd that on 21.09.2016, he alongwith his son Ram Shakal reached Safdarjung Hospital, where Pooja was found under treatment and on asking she told that she had caught fire while preparing food. Both PW-2 and PW-3 were cross-examined by the Ld. State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 12 of 24 Addl. PP for the State, however, they denied that the deceased had told them that on the day of incident, accused Arvind had poured petrol on her and had set her on fire. Therefore, as per PW-2 and PW-3 i.e. the immediate relatives of deceased Ms. Pooja being her brother and father, the deceased had told them that she had caught fire while preparing food. Thus, the version disclosed by the deceased to her brother and father is absolutely contrary to the version given by her to the Executive Magistrate as already recapitulated above.
44. It is also relevant to note here that as per PW-2 Mr. Ramsakal Sahani, brother of deceased, he had given a letter, bearing his signatures as well as the thumb impressions of his deceased sister to the police for re-recording the statement of Pooja. The photocopy of the said letter has been marked as Mark A and the photocopy of the postal receipt has been marked as Mark B. Neither the original of the said application/letter is available nor the letter is totally legible (the photocopy being dim). However, in view of the fact that most of the contents of the application/letter can be read and the brother and father of the deceased have admitted during their cross-examination that the said letter was posted by them (to the SHO PS Uttam Nagar on 26.09.2016 i.e. one day prior to the death of the deceased, as per the postal receipt Mark B) and the fact that the letter Mark A also bears the signatures of PW-2 Mr. Ram Sakal Sahni, brother of deceased, this Court is of the view that the relevant contents of the said letter can be considered. The relevant contents of Mark A read as under :-
"मेरे शरीर में आग लगने में मेरे पति अरविन्द व जेठ जेठानी State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 13 of 24 पूनम किसी का कोई हाथ नहीं है/ मैं किसी की खिलाफ कोई भी कार्यवाही नहीं चाहती हुँ मैं अपना ब्यान जो की दिनांक 19.09.2016 को दिया था पुनः वापस लेती हुँ कृपया मेरे इस बयान को सही माना जाय तथा मेरे पति अरविन्द जेठ एवं जितनी पूनम या किसी और के खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही नहीं चाहती हुँ /"
45. From the above extracts of Mark A, it appears that a day prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased through her brother and father had tried to retract her earlier statement i.e. her dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 19.09.2016.
46. From the above discussion, it is apparent that at different points of time since after the incident till the date of her death, the deceased had given different versions regarding the incident. While in her statement given to the police she stated that it was her husband Arvind who had poured petrol on her and had set her on fire, as per PW-2 and PW-3 i.e. brother and father of deceased, she had told them before her death that she had caught fire while preparing food and the letter/application Mark A, whereby the deceased had requested the SHO PS Uttam Nagar to take her complaint back.
47. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled Abhishek Sharma vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2023 INSC 924 , has appreciated the various principles of law laid down by it in various judgments/pronouncements, with regard to cases involving multiple dying declarations. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :-
"OUR VIEW
8. Before proceeding to the merits of this State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 14 of 24 matter, it would be appropriate to appreciate the various principles of law laid down by this court in regard to cases involving multiple dying declarations.
8.1 This Court in Kamla v. State of Punjab has held:
"5. It is well settled that dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction provided that it is free from infirmities and satisfies various tests (vide Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 22 : 1958 SCR 552 : 1958 Cri LJ 106] ). The ratio laid down in this case has been referred to in a number of subsequent cases with approval. It is also settled in all those cases that the statement should be consistent throughout if the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration, they should be consistent. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without even any corroboration. 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 the inconsistencies namely whether they are material or not. In scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances."
8.2. In State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar, this court further observed:
"10. .... The court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful. If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 15 of 24 is created about the truthfulness of the dying declarations. It may be that if there was any other reliable evidence on record, this court could have considered such corroborative evidence to test the truthfulness of the dying declarations..."
8.3. In Amol Singh v. State of M.P., "13. ... However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. While scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances."
8.4. Faced with multiple dying declarations, this Court in Lakhan v. State of M.P observed-
"21. ... In case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness. In case there are circumstances wherein the declaration had been made, not voluntarily and even otherwise, it is not supported by the other evidence, the court has to scrutinise the facts of an individual case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance." This judgment was also referred to by this court recently in Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana.
8.5. In Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra, the court State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 16 of 24 observed:-
"15. When there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated and assessed independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of certain variations in the other."
8.6. In Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the following principles were observed:
31. A survey of the decisions would show that the principles of declarations can be culled out as follows: ....
31.6. However, there may be cases where there are more than one dying declaration. If there are more than one dying declaration, the dying declarations may entirely agree with one another. There may be dying declarations where inconsistencies between the declarations emerge. The extent of the inconsistencies would then have to be considered by the court. The inconsistencies may turn out to be reconcilable.
31.7. In such cases, where the inconsistencies go to some matter of detail or description but is incriminatory in nature as far as the Accused is concerned, the court would look to the material on record to conclude as to which dying declaration is to be relied on unless it be shown that they are unreliable;
31.8. The third category of cases is that where there are more than one dying declaration and inconsistencies between the declarations are absolute and the dying declarations are irreconcilable being repugnant to one another. In a dying declaration, the Accused may not be blamed at all and State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 17 of 24 the cause of death may be placed at the doorstep of an unfortunate accident.
This may be followed up by another dying declaration which is diametrically opposed to the first dying declaration. In fact, in that scenario, it may not be a question of an inconsistent dying declaration but a dying declaration which is completely opposed to the dying declaration which is given earlier. There may be more than two."
8.7. In Uttam v. State of Maharashtra,16 this court observed:
"15. In cases involving multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, the question that arises for consideration is as to which of the said dying declarations ought to be believed by the court and what would be the guiding factors for arriving at a just and lawful conclusion. The problem becomes all the more knotty when the dying declarations made by the deceased are found to be contradictory. Faced with such a situation, the court would be expected to carefully scrutinise the evidence to find out as to which of the dying declarations can be corroborated by other material evidence produced by the prosecution. Of equal significance is the condition of the deceased at the relevant point in time, the medical evidence brought on record that would indicate the physical and mental fitness of the deceased, the scope of the close relatives/family members having influenced/tutored the deceased and all the other attendant circumstances that would help the court in exercise of its discretion."
State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 18 of 24
48. The Hon'ble Apex Court, after discussing all its previous decisions as reproduced hereinabove, laid down the following principles for the Courts dealing with multiple dying declarations:-
"9. Having considered various pronouncements of this court, the following principles emerge, for a Court to consider when dealing with a case involving multiple dying declarations:
9.1 The primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in a fit state of mind;
9.2 All dying declarations should be consistent. In other words, inconsistencies between such statements should be 'material' for its credibility to be shaken; 9.3 When inconsistencies are found between various dying declarations, other evidence available on record may be considered for the purposes of corroboration of the contents of dying declarations. 9.4 The statement treated as a dying declaration must be interpreted in light of surrounding facts and circumstances.
9.5 Each declaration must be scrutinized on its own merits. The court has to examine upon which of the statements reliance can be placed in order for the case to proceed further.
9.6 When there are inconsistencies, the statement that has been recorded by a Magistrate or like higher officer can be relied on, subject to the indispensable qualities of truthfulness and being free of suspicion. 9.7 In the presence of inconsistencies, the medical fitness of the person making such declaration, at the relevant time, assumes importance along with other factors such as the possibility of tutoring by relatives, etc."
49. In light of the aforeaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the various versions given by the deceased prior to her death, this Court is of the view that State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 19 of 24 the said versions of the deceased are not at all consistent and are in fact absolutely contrary to each other. As per record, the first statement of the victim i.e. 'dying declaration' was recorded by the then Executive Magistrate on 19.09.2016 i.e. the date of the incident wherein she stated that it was her husband Arvind who had poured petrol upon her and had set her on fire. However, PW-2 and PW-3 i.e. brother and father of the deceased have deposed in the Court that on 21.09.2016, the deceased had told them that she had caught fire while preparing food and that on 26.09.2016, they had posted a letter to the SHO PS Uttam Nagar for withdrawing the complaint of the present FIR. As per PW-2 and PW-3, the said lette/application Mark A also bear the thumb impressions of the deceased Ms. Pooja.
50. In view of the inconsistent versions of the deceased, this Court deems it fit to evaluate as to whether the first statement of the victim i.e. Ex.PW7/A recorded by the then Executive Magistrate, finds corroboration from other material relied upon by the prosecution. In Ex.PW7/A, the victim Ms. Pooja (since deceased) claimed that the accused Arvind had poured petrol upon her after taking out the petrol from the scooty in a bucket. However, as has already been discussed above also, as per the case of prosecution, the accused had poured petrol on the deceased from a plastic box, which was recovered at the instance of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. The said plastic box was sent to the FSL, Rohini for expert examination, however, as per the FSL report Ex.PW15/A, no residue of kerosene/diesel/petrol could be detected in the said plastic box. The bucket as claimed by the State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 20 of 24 deceased in her statement Ex.PW7/A has not been recovered in the present case.
51. Further, as per Ex.PW7/A, on hearing her screams, her neighbouring tenant Mr. Tuntun and her Jeth Mr. Phool Kumar came and saved her. However, the said Mr. Tuntun Kumar while appearing in the witness box as PW-4 did not claim that he had either seen accused Arvind at the spot or that seen him running from the spot. In fact, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused Arvind Choudhary was present at the spot on the date and time of the incident.
52. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the very first version in the form of ''alleged history'' recorded by the treating doctor also records ''A/H/O sustaining thermal burn due to spillage of petrol when her husband pour petrol over her in her room and ingnite fire with matchbox". In this regard, it is relevant to note that as per the MLC Ex.PW8/A, the victim was brought to the hospital by Mr. Ful Kumar (brother in law), however, the MLC does not specify as to who gave the aforesaid alleged history, the injured herself or the brought by. In the absence of anything on record to suggest that the said alleged history was given to the treating doctor by the victim herself, the said alleged history cannot render any corroboration to the 'dying declaration' Ex.PW7/A of the deceased.
53. Further, it is also relevant to note whether at the time of giving the statement/dying declaration Ex.PW7/A, the victim Ms. Pooja (Since deceased) was in a fit state of mind State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 21 of 24 during recording of her statement/Dying Declaration, or not. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to CHAPTER 13-A of Volume III of Delhi High Court Rules and Orders regarding 'Dying Declaration', which reads as under :-
"8. Fitness of the Declarant to make a statement to be certified by the Judicial Magistrate or other officer concerned--The Judicial Magistrate or other officer recording a dying declaration shall at the conclusion of the dying declaration certify that the declarant was fit to make a statement and it contained a correct and faithful record of the statement made by him as well as of the questions, if any, that were put to him by the justice recording the statement. If the accused or his counsel happens to be present at the time the dying declaration is recorded, his presence and objection, if any, raised by him shall be noted by the Judicial Magistrate or the officer recording the dying declaration, but the accused of his counsel shall not be entitled to crossexamine the declarant." (emphasis supplied).
54. In the instant case, though as per the case of prosecution, the 'dying declaration' Ex.PW7/A was recorded by Mr. Bansidhar Meena, the then Executive Magistrate, he while appearing in the Court as PW-7 during his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel stated that Ex.PW7/A was reduced into writing by the IO. Contrary to the version of the IO, PW-17 Inspector Pratap Singh, the initial IO of the case in his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel stated that when the statement of injured/deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, he was present there and apart from him, a doctor and the official who had come with the Executive Magistrate were also present. He further stated that the statement was reduced into writing by the official of Executive Magistrate on State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 22 of 24 the dictation of the Executive Magistrate. Be that as it may be, even if the statement/dying declaration was recorded on the dictation of the Executive Magistrate, the said fact must have been duly recorded/certified at the end of the 'dying declaration'. It is also relevant to note that the Executive Magistrate after recording the 'dying declaration' Ex.PW7/A, did not record his certificate that the said 'dying declaration' was recorded correctly as deposed by the victim. Reliance here is also placed on the pronouncement in Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr vs State of Karnataka, 2014 (2) RCR (Crl.) 507 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held " The sanctity is attached to a dying declaration because it comes from the mouth of a dying person. If the dying declaration is recorded not directly from the actual words of the maker but as dictated by somebody else, in our opinion, this by itself creates a lot of suspicion about credibility of such statement and the prosecution has to clear the same to the satisfaction of the court."
55. In view of the aforesaid discussion with regard to the multiple inconsitent versions of the deceased, coupled with the fact that the PW-2 and PW-3 i.e. brother and father of the deceased have themselves deposed in the Court that the victim had told them that she had caught fire while prearing food and in the absence of any corrobating evidence, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the accused cannot be solely based on the 'dying declaration' Ex.PW7/A. CONCLUSION
56. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 23 of 24 the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused Arvind Choudhary beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Arvind Choudhary is accordingly acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC.
57 File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 7th February, 2026.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH
RAMAN SINGH Date: +0530
2026.02.07 11:53:42
(Himanshu Raman Singh)
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) South West District, Dwarka Courts/New Delhi.
It is certified that this Judgment contains twenty four (24) pages and each page bears my initials/signatures.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHU HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH
RAMAN SINGH Date: 2026.02.07 11:53:47
+0530
(Himanshu Raman Singh)
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) South West District, Dwarka Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Arvind Choudhary FIR No. 699/2016 PS Uttam Nagar Page 24 of 24