Delhi District Court
State vs Geeta Etc on 31 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI R.K.CHAUHAN: A S J/SPL JUDGE
(NDPS) (WEST) DELHI
FIR no. 135/08
Unique case ID no. 02401R1110102008
Police station Paharganj
U/s 302/498A/34IPC
State V/s Geeta etc
1. Session Case no. : SC no. 13/08
2. Name of the accused : 1) Smt. Geeta W/o Jagan Lal R/o
and parentage RZ-98B, Kailashpuri Extension ,
Palam Colony, Delhi.
2) Smt. Parveen @ Mamta W/o
Raj Kumar R/o 27/166,
Trilokpuri, Delhi.
3) Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Shri
Prem Chand R/o M-14,
Mahakali Mandir Railway
Colony, Basant Lane, Paharganj,
Delhi.
3. Date of commission of : 18/05/2008
offence
4. Arguments concluded : .10/05/2010
on
5. Date of Judgment : 31/05/2010
6. Date of final order : 31/05/2010
JUDGMENT
1) The prosecution case in brief is as under:-
Deceased Sangeeta daughter of Complainant Shri Madan Lal was married to Shri Vishnu Chand about 12 years ago before she died on 31/5/2008 due to sustaining burn injuries on 18/5/2008.
FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 1 of 54 It is alleged that from the day of her marriage accused Shanti Devi mother-in-law of deceased used to harass and torture the deceased by saying that instead of giving dowry articles, a car could have given by the complainant/father of the deceased. The deceased was stated to be suffering from some kidney disease and was being got treated by the complainant because husband of the deceased was not doing anything. On 18/5/2008 husband of the deceased came to meet her in the morning and called her telephonically to meet him in the third street from his house. The deceased was sent to her parent's home by her in-laws about a week ago. Her husband has taunted her by saying that her father was not able to bear expenses of her treatment and thereafter left for his home. After that complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Dhano, mother Smt. Banno Devi, his younger brother Shri Rattan Lal, Smt. Raj wife of his younger brother and deceased alongwith Ms. Kalpana daughter-in-law of the complainant went to the house of in-laws of the deceased in Pahar Ganj. They had gone there for talks for settlement of the problems. During talks some hot discussions took place and the deceased had gone to fetch water from the kitchen for her father/complainant. In the meantime Rahul son of accused Praveen (sister-in-law of the deceased) came running and screaming by uttering words "mami jal gai". Shri Rattan Lal brother of the complainant and other persons ran towards the deceased and found her coming out of the kitchen in flames. Shri Rattan Lal poured water upon the deceased and her clothes were clinging to her body. The deceased was rushed to hospital by her father and her husband. In the hospital FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 2 of 54 Investigating Officer has recorded her statement in which she has stated that her sister-in-laws Praveen and Geeta had poured kerosene oil upon her and the accused Praveen set her on fire. She ran towards bathroom where her husband Shri. Vishnu put water upon her. The Executive Magistrate was also called for recording statement of the injured who recorded only part statement of her father and thereafter left stating that the injured/victim had been married to Shri Vishnu Chand approximately 12 years ago and the case under consideration did not come under the perview of section 176 CrPC. On 19/5/2008 again subsequent statement of deceased was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of Doctor Amrit who has attested her statement wherein she had again implicated accused Praveen and Geeta for burning her by pouring kerosene oil upon her. She has alleged that her mother-in-law Shanti Devi used to torture her and threatened her for giving her whole property to her daughters. Injured Smt Sangita died on 31/5/2008 in Lady Harding Medical College. During investigation accused Geeta and Praveen were arrested. After completion of investigation a chargesheet was filed against all the accused persons for the offence under section 302/498A/34IPC.
2) Accused Shanti Devi was placed in Khana no.2 and was not arrested during investigation. While taking cognizance of the offence the Ld Metropolitan Magistrate,Delhi had summoned accused Shanti Devi. Accused Shanti Devi appeared before Ld Metropolitan Magistrate,Delhi on 29/9/2008 and was released on bail on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to her by Hon'ble FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 3 of 54 High Court of Delhi vide order dated 25/9/2008.
3) On 17/11/2008, after hearing the Ld counsel for the accused person and Ld Addl. PP for the State a charge under section 498-A IPC was framed against accused Shanti Devi and charge under section 302/34IPC was framed against accused Geeta and Praveen to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) In support of its case prosecution has examined in total 23 witnesses.
5) The brief summary of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is as under:-
I. FORMAL WITNESSES PW3 HC A. K. Krishana was working as photographer in the Crime Team Central District and he alongwith Incharge Crime Team has reached on the spot and on the instructions of the Incharge he had taken the photographs Ex. PW3/22 to Ex.PW3/42 and the negatives Ex PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/21.
PW6 HC Shalesh Kumar was working as MHC (M) on 18/5/2008 in the police station Pahar Ganj and deposed that SI Har Prasad has deposited with him 8 sealed parcels vide entry 2947 in register no. 19 Ex.PW6/A. On 18/6/2008 SI Har Prasad deposited with him one sealed envelop with the seal of LHMC and FMT alongwith sample seal of LHMC hospital vide entry no. 2980 Ex.PW6/B. On 25/7/2008 he has sent all the sealed parcels alongwith sample seal vide RC no.80/21 to FSL, Rohini through Ct Raj Kumar stating that same were redeposited on 09/01/2009 vide entry Ex.PW6/A. He has FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 4 of 54 also proved the copy of the Road Certificate as Ex.PW6/C and acknowledgment of the case acceptance by FSL as Ex.PW6/D. PW9 HC Lalaram while working as duty officer on 18/5/2008 from 9.00am to 5.00pm has received a rukka at 16.45 hours through Ct.Sanjeev Kumar recorded the FIR Ex. PW9/A. His endorsement on the rukka was Ex. PW9/B and copy of the DD no. 18 as Ex. PW9/C. PW10 Ct. Raj Kumar has deposed that on 25/7/2008 he received sealed parcels, sample seal alongwith FSL-form from HC Shalesh Kumar and deposited the same in the FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 80/21 in intact condition and not tampered with.
PW11 Ct. Jagbir has deposed that on 31/5/2008 he joined the investigation with SI Har Prasad and reached at RML hospital Mortuary and the dead body of the Sangita was duly identified by her father Shri Madan Lal and brother Shri Sanjay Kumar. From the mortuary they went to LHMC for the postmortem of the dead body. The Investigating officer prepared the relevant documents and the same were handed over to the concerned doctor. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to its relatives.
PW13 SI Manohar Lal was posted as draftsman in North- West District and on 12/8/2008 on the request of SI Har Prasad he had prepared the scaled site plan Ex. 13/A. PW14 SI Ashok Kumar has inspected the scene of crime on 18/5/2008 and prepared his report Ex. PW14/A. PW15 Lady Ct. Suman has joined the investigation with Investigating Officer and Ct. Sanjiv Kumar on 18/5/2008; on that day FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 5 of 54 she conducted the personal search of accused Geeta and Praveen vide memo Ex. PW8/E and Ex.PW8/F. PW16 ASI Hussain Ali has deposed that on 18/5/2008 he was posted in the PCR in Central Zone on Oscar 27 vehicle. On that day on receiving information from the Control room he alongwith his staff reached at the spot i.e M-14, Mahakali Mandir, Railway Colony, Basant Lane, Pahar Ganj; on reaching there they found Smt Sangita wife of Shri Vishnu was in burnt condition; the injured/victim was shifted to the RML hospital in PCR van.
PW22 Shri Ajit Kumar was posted as Tehsildar having the power of Executive Magistrate, Paharganj on 18/5/2008; on that day on receiving the message from Police Station Paharganj regarding admission of a lady having burn injuries he went to RML hospital; there father of the injured Shri Madan Lal met him outside the emergency ward of the hospital; he recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A and made his endorsement vide Ex.PW22/A. II. MATERIAL WITNESSES PW1 Madan Lal father of deceased Sangeeta has deposed that after marriage of Smt Sangita for about 2½ years everything was well; his son-in-law Vishnu Chand was not doing anything and accused Shanti Devi mother-in-law of his daughter used to taunt his daughter and also torturing her by saying that whatever dowry had been given, it would have been better if her father had given a car instead of dowry; his daughter was suffering from some kidney problem, therefore she was getting treatment from a doctor in FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 6 of 54 Kalyanpuri who was recommended by accused Praveen; the doctor had asked him to come with her husband therefore on 18/5/2008 the deceased has made a telephonic call to her husband to accompany her to doctor; his son-in-law came in a street near to his residence and met the deceased but taunted her by saying that her father was not bearing the expenses of her treatment and left after taunting and snubbing the deceased; on returning home she started weeping and told about the whole incident between her and her husband; at about 12.00 'O' clock he (PW1) talked to accused Shanti Devi on telephone and informed about the conduct of her son Vishnu; accused Shanti Devi asked him to come to her residence for talks if he was interested. Accordingly, he alongwith other family members i.e Smt. Dhano Devi, daughter-in-law Ms. Kalpana, his younger brother and Smt. Raj wife of his younger brother alongwith deceased Sangita went to her in law's house and reached there at about 12.45pm and were sitting in the drawing room alongwith accused Shanti Devi and her husband and his son-in-law Vishnu. Accused Geeta and Praveen were standing outside the room and his daughter Sangeeta went to fetch water from the kitchen because accused persons even did not ask for water. In the meantime son of accused Praveen came there screaming "mami jal gai, mami jal gai. They rushed towards his daughter who was badly burnt as her suit (clothes) were clinging to her body. First of all, Shri Rattan Lal brother of PW1 went to the spot who told him that accused Geeta and Praveen had poured kerosene oil upon the deceased Sangita and then set her on fire. He further deposed that when he went towards the spot he had seen accused Geeta and Praveen coming out running from the FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 7 of 54 kitchen; someone informed the PCR and PCR came and then he alongwith his son-in-law Vishnu rushed Sangita to Lady Harding hospital who refused to entertain her and thereafter took her to RML hospital; doctor told him that his daughter was burnt upto 95%. On 31/5/2008 she died in the hospital. He further deposed that in the hospital his daughter told him about the whole incident stating that accused Geeta and Praveen had poured kerosene oil upon her and set her on fire. He has proved his statement Ex. PW1/A recorded by the police in the hospital.
In his cross-examination by Ld defence counsel he has stated that statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded in the hospital and he had stated all the facts as deposed in the examination-in-chief to the police who recorded his statement. He further stated in his cross- examination that he did not make any complaint to any authority till 18/5/2008 regarding the alleged harassment of his daughter by her in- laws because he did not want to spoil her family life as she was having three children; he used to visit matrimonial home of his daughter once in a week for giving money to her. He further stated that when he reached in the hospital with his son-in-law his daughter was conscious and the doctor who attended her in the hospital had talked with her; he was not present when the Investigating Officer recorded statement of Sangita on 18/5/2008 and her statement might have been recorded at about 3.00pm and he was asked by the police to remain outside the room of his daughter; his daughter used to tell him that accused Shanti Devi always said that she would give her entire property to her daughters Geeta and Praveen. He has further deposed in his cross-
FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 8 of 54 examination that "the talks in the beginning at the house of the accused persons were peaceful but the accused persons became annoyed and my son-in-law started saying that he wanted to divorce Sangita and hot words were exchanged when I asked him as to why he wanted to divorce and at that time my daughter had gone to fetch water". He has denied the suggestion of Ld counsel that Rahul son of accused Praveen raised alarm by saying that "mami ne aag laga lee, mami ne aag laga lee" and voluntarily stated that Rahul came shouting that mami jal gai; Rahul came running after about 10 minutes of leaving of Sangita for fetching water; his brother Rattan Lal went firstly outside the room and took his daughter to bathroom and poured water upon her. He has denied the suggestion that his daughter sustained burn injuries accidentally in the kitchen or that she was not put to fire by accused Geeta and Praveen; he had seen his daughter in burning condition for the first time when she was being taken away by Rattan Lal towards the bathroom.
PW2 Smt Dhano Devi is the mother of the deceased and has deposed that deceased Sangeeta was married with Vishnu about 10-12 years ago; she has corroborated the version of PW1 regarding the harassment of his daughter by her in-laws after about 1½ years of her marriage and also about quarrelsome meeting of her daughter with her husband Vishnu on 18/5/2008 at a place situated at 2 -3 street away from their house in Pandav Nagar.
PW4 Shri Rattan Lal is the elder brother of the complainant and has deposed that Sangeeta was married to Vishnu about 12 years back; Vishnu had come 2/3 gali away from his shop FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 9 of 54 and called Sangeeta there and his son Sonu took Sangeeta on motorcycle for meeting to Vishnu; later on, his brother told him that Vishnu has extended threats by saying that why her father was not bearing the medical expenses; at that time Sangeeta was residing at her parental home; on 18/5/2008 they went to the house of the accused persons; on reaching there his brother Madan Lal asked Vishnu what he wanted on which Vishnu replied that he wanted divorce from Sangeeta; On this a verbal quarrel had taken place between Vishnu and Madan Lal; Madan Lal was feeling difficulty in breathing and Sangeeta went to fetch water; Praveen's son Rahul was heard shouting that "Mami Jal gai, Mami Jal gai"; he immediately rushed towards that side and Rahul pointed out Sangeeta in burning condition and she was burning badly with flames and was coming out of the kitchen; he pulled her towards bathroom for pouring water upon her and in that process he also got burn injuries on his left hand; he poured water on Sangeeta for extinguishing her fire and Sangeeta herself also poured water; none from her in-laws came forward to pour water; accused Geeta and Parveen were standing near the gate of the kitchen where they had put her on fire; accused Shanti Devi was also present in the house; Madan Lal and Vishnu rushed Sangeeta to hospital in Delhi Police vehicle as some friend of Vishnu had made a call to the police; SHO enquired from him in the hospital on the same date his name and he as well as Madan Lal told the incident to the police.
PW5 Smt Raj has deposed that she had gone to the in- laws house of deceased Sangita alongwith other family members and were having talks while sitting in a room and at that time accused FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 10 of 54 Geeta and Praveen outside (near the room) when Rahul son of sister
-in-law of Sangita came saying mami jal gai. She was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Ld Addl. PP for the State and was confronted with statement mark-5A.
In her cross-examination by Ld defence counsel she has stated that when they heard the shouts of Rahul, they all were sitting inside the room; Vishnu and his mother also sustained injuries while extinguishing fire of Sangita.
PW7 Sonu has deposed that he was running a shop of dry cleaning; on 18/5/2008, on the night of Saturday he received a telephonic call from Vishnu Chand on his mobile who asked him to bring Sangeeta to Aggarwal sweets shop in Pandav Nagar for ultra sound. On Sunday at about 8.30/9.00am he took Sangeeta to Aggarwal Sweets shop and left with Vishnu for talks; they started quarreling with each other and thereafter Vishnu left and Sangeeta returned alongwith him.
PW8 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar has reached the spot after receiving information vide DD no. 18/A alongwith SI Har Prasad and on reaching there they came to know that injured was removed to RML hospital; on entering in the house no. M-14 of the ground floor the water was found scattering on the floor; the half burnt pieces of clothes were lying inside and outside of the bathroom; the pieces of broken bangles were lying near the bed and sofa of front room; on the left side of the way towards to the kitchen one empty match box was lying and some burnt pieces of clothes were also lying inside of the kitchen; near the door of the last room the plastic cane having FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 11 of 54 kerosene was lying on the floor and its cap was lying on the iron box near the gas cylinder; he was deputed at the spot to safeguard the spot and SI Har Prasad went to RML hospital; thereafter, Investigating Officer reached at the spot alongwith MLC and seized the above said articles lying in the abovesaid house vide seizure memo Ex. PW 8/A; thereafter he went to the Police Station and got the case registered and returned to the spot and handed over the FIR to the IO. accused Shanti Devi handed over one jampher and salwar which were seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW8/B. In his presence on on 19/5/2008 accused persons Praveen and Geeta were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/C and Ex. PW8/D and their personal search memos were prepared by the Investigating Officer as Ex. PW8/E and Ex. PW8/F; He has also identified the articles which were recovered at the spot i.e broken pieces of bangles as Ex. P1 (collectively), one salwar, one baniyan, one black colour cloth pieces, one light yellow colour cloth pieces, piece of white colour baniyan which are collectively Ex. P2; pieces of partly burnt clothes the same are collectively Ex. P3; pieces of burnt clothes collectively Ex.P4, one match box containing four live match sticks is identified as Ex. P5, brown coloured ladies kurta and white colour brassiere the same are collectively Ex. P6, one partly burnt red colour kurta, Samiz and black colour salwar of accused Shanti Devi are collectively Ex. P8; one plastic cane is Ex. P7.
PW21 SI Har Prasad is the Investigating Officer of the case and deposed that on 18/5/2008 on receiving DD no. 18A Ex.PW9/C he alongwith Ct. Sanjiv Kumar reached at the spot at FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 12 of 54 house no. M-14, near Mahakali Mandir Railway Colony, Vasant Lane, Paharganj, Delhi; on reaching there he came to know that the injured was taken to RML hospital by PCR; he inspected the spot. He has corroborated Ct. Sanjeev Kumar PW8 regarding the scene of occurrence and the articles lying there. He left Ct. Sanjiv at the spot for its safeguard and he went to RML hospital and collected the MLC of Sangita W/o Vishnu aged 35 years R/o house no. M-14, near Mahakali Mandir Railway Colony, Vasant Lane, Paharganj, Delhi; the father of Sangita namely Madan Lal met him in the hospital; he recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A on which he made endorsement Ex.PW21/A and got the case registered u/s 307/498A/34IPC; he recorded statement of injured Sangita Ex.PW21/C after declaring fit for statement by the doctor on which she put her thumb impression (RTI) at point- A; from the hospital he went to the spot there on the identification of Madan Lal (father of the deceased) prepared the site plan Ex. PW21/D (which is earlier mark-X). He further deposed that on 19/5/2008 on receiving DD no. 14A Ex. PW21/E regarding Sangita wanted to make her further statement he reached in the hospital and obtained the opinion from the doctor that Sangita was fit for statement on the MLC at point- Ex. PW17/A and he recorded her statement Ex.PW18/B which was counter signed by the doctor of Burn and Plastic Surgery Ward; he recorded the statement of Sangita on her dictation in the presence of the doctor on which she put her right thumb impression at point- A. III. MEDICAL WITNESSES PW12 Dr. Abhishek Yadav, Senior Resident, Department FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 13 of 54 of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjang, New Delhi has deposed as under:-
"On 31/5/2008 I was posted at Department of Forensic , Lady Harding Medical College. On that day I received the body and the inquest papers for the person named Sangeeta , 35 years female at 12.00pm for postmortem. I started postmortem at 12.05pm . On external examination :-
The eyes were opened. Mouth was partially opened, cornea was hazy . All other natural orfices were NAD. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. The postmortem staining was undistinguishable. There was no sign of decomposition. Antiseptic dressing was present over the burnt area. Superficial to deep antemortem flame burns were present involving face, head, neck, chest, abdomen , back, upper limbs, lower limbs except right foot and lower 1/3 of left leg. Genital area was spared. Total burnt area involved about 95% of total body surface area. Blackening and charring were present over burnt area. Singeing of scalp and body hair were present . Greenish discolouration with slough present over burnt area . No other external antemortem injury was present over the body. In internal examination:-
Head and neck , scalp , larynx , pharynx , chest wall , mediastinun , diaphragm were NAD . The brain was measuring 1300 gm and was oedematous and congested . Oesophagus , trachea , bronchi, one NAD. Lungs were adherent to chest wall and oedematous. The pus-pockets were present in all the lobes in both the lungs . The right lung was measuring 480gm and left measuring 440gm. Heart was measuring 200gm and was NAD. Abdominal wall and peritoneum were NAD. Stomach was empty and walls were NAD. Pancreas and intestine were NAD. Livers was measuring 1100gm and was congested . Spleen was measuring 250gm and was congested.
Kidneys were measuring 150 gm each and was FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 14 of 54 congested and enlarged. Genital organs were NAD and uterus was empty. Spinal column was NAD. Muscles and bones of the limbs were NAD. Opinion:-
In my opinion the cause of death in this case is septicemia produced as a complication of antemortem infected superficial to deep flame burns involving about 95% of total body surface area. Approximate time since death of about ½ day.
Scalp hair of the deceased were preserved , sealed and handed over to IO with sample seal. My report is Ex. PW12/A (running into 6 pages) bearing my signatures at point- A and the same is in my handwriting."
PW17 Dr. Kshetrimayum Vijayanta, Senior Resident, RML hospital has deposed that on 19/5/2008 he was in the department of Burns and Plastic Surgery; on that day at about 12.15pm he declared the patient fit for making statement vide endorsement Ex.PW17/A on the MLC no. 6240/08.
PW18 Dr. Amrit Senior Resident, Burns and Plastic Surgery Ward-II, RML hospital has deposed as under:-
"On 31.5.2008 , I have been working in the RML hospital in Burn and Plastic Ward in Ward no. II . On that day I prepared the death report of Sangeeta with the alleged history of Homicidal burn injury as per patient information. The patient caught fire on 18.5.2008 at around 12.00 p.m by her relatives poured kerosene oil and caught fire and leading to the burn injury . She was admitted in RML hospital on 18.5.2008 around 2.15 p.m and transferred to burn Ward for further management . On examination the patient was found 89% thermal burns with inhalation injury . She was treated conservatively with IVF, antiboitics , analgesic etc. FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 15 of 54 On 31.5.2008, she got cardiac arrest and could not be revived inspite of CPR and essential drugs and patient was declared on the night of 31.5.2008 at 1.00 a.m. The death report is Ex.PW18/A which is in my handwriting and bears my signatures at point A. The statement mark A of the deceased Sangeeta was attested by me vide endorsement vide Ex PW18/B. The said statement was recorded by police official in my presence."
PW19 Dr. Meenakshi, CMO (Casualty), RML hospital has deposed as under:-
"On 18/5/2008 I was working as CMO (casualty) in the RML hospital. On that day at about 2pm Sangeeta W/o Vishnu was brought in the casualty in burnt condition by SI Hussain Ali with the alleged history of burns poured kerosene by herself as told by the patient.
On examination:- I found Sangeeta was conscious and oriented and clinically no abnormality discovered, her vitals are stable, approximately she was having 90% burns.
On local examination:- superficial burns were found all over the body including face , ear, neck, upper and lower limbs, chest, abdomen, pelvis , sparing pubic area also including full back, hips, charring of hair, sparing right foot and lower 1/3rd of lower leg I prepared the MLC Ex. PW19/A in detail which bears my signature at point- A."
PW20 Dr Nusrat, Casualty Medical Officer, Lady Harding Medical College had deposed as under:-
"On 19/5/2008 I was working in the above said FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 16 of 54 hospital as Casualty Medical Officer. On that day Geeta W/o Jagan Lal brought into the hospital by Ct. Suman for her medical examination. On examination I found the patient was conscious, cooperative and oriented. On her local examination:- no abnormality detected by me. The MLC prepared by me in that regard is Ex. PW20/A which bears my signatures at point- A. in the column of marks of identification it is mentioned that the burn marks on the right forearm 5X4 cm .
Court question: What was the nature of burn marks? Ans: These were old burn marks and not fresh and were in the nature of permanent marks.
On the same day, Praveen W/o Raj Kumar @ Raju brought by Ct. Suman was examined by me. On her local examination I found nail marks (abrasions) on her right forearm. The nature of injury were simple, fresh and by blunt object. The MLC prepared by me in that regard is Ex. PW20/B bears my signatures at point- A."
PW23 Dr. Sourav Senior Resident Surgery, RML hospital has deposed that on 18/5/2008 he has made his endorsement Ex.PW23/A on the MLC Ex. PW19/A regarding the patient was fit for statement.
6) In the statement u/s 313 CrPC the accused persons have denied the allegations stating that they were innocent and were falsely implicated.
7) Accused Shanti Devi in her statement stated that she had no knowledge if deceased Sangeeta was having kidney problem. She further stated that there was no dispute between his son and deceased. The handicapped son of his son was having deep intimacy FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 17 of 54 with her daughter Praveen. Sangita was living happily in their house.
8) Accused Praveen in her statement stated that there was no dispute between her and Sangita and handicapped son of Sangita was deeply attached with her.
9) Accused Geeta in her statement stated that she was not present in her parental home at the time of incident and she reached there after coming to know about the incident and was falsely implicated by father of Sangita and there was no dispute between her and Sangita
10) In support of their defence accused persons have examined two defence witnesses namely DW1 Rahul and DW2 Vishnu Chand. DW1 Rahul is the son of accused Praveen whereas DW2 Vishnu Chand is their brother and husband of deceased and son of accused Shanti Devi. Both the DWs stated that when family members of deceased were talking in the drawing room, deceased Sangita had gone to fetch water and came out from the kitchen in a burning condition on which DW1 Rahul ran screaming "mami jal gai, mami jal gai'. DW2 Vishnu Chand has stated that on seeing Sangita coming out from the kitchen with flames he put a cloth upon her and also poured water upon her and during that process he had also sustained some burn injuries on his hand. Both the witnesses however stated that accused Geeta was not present at the time of incident.
11) I have heard Ld counsel Shri Sanjay Gupta advocate for all the accused as well as Ld Addl. PP for the State.
FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 18 of 54 12) The Ld. Defence Counsel has assailed the prosecution case on the following points:- 13) Dying declaration.
Ld counsel has argued that the prosecution is relying on the dying declaration of the deceased in order to prove its case alongwith testimony of her relatives who were allegedly present in the house of the accused persons at the time when the deceased got burnt. It is argued that deceased has never made any dying declaration because statement Ex. PW21/C dated 18/5/2008 and the statement mark-A dated 19/5/2008 are fabricated statement which are allegedly containing thumb impression i.e RTI of deceased. It is admitted case of the prosecution as stated by the doctors that both the hands of the deceased were badly burnt, therefore the thumb impressions if put on these statements cannot give the clear ridges and curves and the thumb impression cannot be visible in case the thumbs were badly burnt. It is therefore argued that these statements does not bear the thumb impression of the deceased and these statements were not made by her and thus statements were fabricated. It is further argued that evenif it is presumed though not admitted that the said statements were allegedly made by the deceased before her death, same does not qualifies to be a dying declaration which can be relied for the purpose of conviction because the said dying declarations are result of tutoring and neither consistent nor reliable. It is further argued that PW19 Dr. Meenakshi who has first examined the deceased in the Emergency ward has also recorded the dying declaration in the form of alleged FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 19 of 54 history of burn as told by the patient and in the said history it is recorded i.e history of burn poured kerosene by herself as told by the patient. Ld defence counsel therefore vehementally argued that this dying declaration in the form of history of burn injury given by the patient at the very first occasion is contradictory to the subsequent dying declarations which are in the form of statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. It therefore argued that the statements which are being relied upon by the prosecution as dying declaration are result of tutoring and are not consistent and reliable and are liable to be rejected.
14) Testimony of other prosecution witnesses:-
Regarding the testimony of other witnesses Ld defence counsel has argued that PW5 Rattan Lal was not present as he was introduced lateron as alleged eye witness. All the witnesses who are family members of the deceased had improved their statement which has left their statement to be unreliable and not worthy of any credit and further their testimony suffers from bias and same has been assailed in the cross-examination.
15) It is further argued that the testimony of prosecution witnesses i.e PW1 Madan Lal, PW2 Dhanno Devi, PW4 Rattan Lal and PW5 Raj is contradictory to each other on various material points. PW2 Dhano Devi has stated that her husband PW1 Madan Lal became unconscious and regained his consciousness after about 15 minutes. PW1 Madan Lal has contradicted the version of PW2 Dhano Devi regarding his being unconscious, beatings and manhandling with him as alleged by Dhanno Devi. However, PW2 FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 20 of 54 Dhanno Devi was silent about coming of Rahul and has shouting by saying mami jal gai, mami jal gai. It is further argued that all these witnesses has stated that they did not meet the police after about 15 days but statement u/s 161 CrPC has been allegedly recorded on 3rd June, 2008.
16) Other circumstantial evidence Ld defence counsel has argued that prosecution has failed to establish the allegations by other circumstantial evidence including the evidence collected from the spot because kerosene oil has been detected as per FSL report only on the cane containing kerosene oil whereas kerosene oil could not detected on the other exhibits.
17) Arguments for accused Shanti Ld defence counsel argued that there is nothing on record to prove the allegations u/s 498A IPC because none of the witness could testify that the said accused had harassed the deceased by causing physical and mental torture to her by making demand of dowry. It is further argued that the allegations and the deposition of the witnesses in that regard is superficial and mere bald statements and in the absence of proof of demand of dowry and the harassment and torture on that account, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the said accused who is therefore entitled to acquittal.
18) Ld defence counsel vehementally argued that the testimony of defence witnesses is equally reliable and trustworthy who has successfully deposed that none of the accused persons was present FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 21 of 54 in the kitchen at the time of alleged burning of deceased Sangita who was first time seen by DW1 Rahul coming out of the kitchen in burning condition and accused Shanti Devi and her son then rushed to rescue her and extinguished her fire and had taken her to the bathroom and in that process they have also sustained burn injuries.
19) Ld defence counsel therefore vehementally argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons.
20) In support of its contention Ld defence counsel has referred and relied upon following cases:-
I. (1997) 1 SCR 439 SC, Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs State of Orissa, II. (1972) 2 SCR 948 SC, S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, III. 2001 (3) RCR (Criminal) 766 SC, Ronal Kiprono Ramkat Vs State of Haryana, IV. 2001 (2) RCR (Criminal) 416, Uka Ram Vs State of Rajasthan, V. 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 343 SC, State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashfq Ahmad, VI. 1998 (111) AD (SCT) 127, State of Punjab Vs Gian Kaur and Anr, VII. 2000 (4) Crimes 283 SC, Anil Kumar Vs State of Punjab , VIII. 2000 (4) Crimes 260 SC, Tarun @ Gautam Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal, IX. 2004 (1) JCC 493 SC, Ashok Vishnu Davare Vs State of Maharashtra, X. 1998 (3) C.C Cases (SC) 93, State of Rajasthan Vs Rajendra Singh, XI. 1998 (2) C.C Cases (SC) 58, Mohd Iqbal M. Shaikh & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra, XII. 1998 (2) C.C. Cases (SC) 45, Jag Narain Prasad V The State of Bihar, XIII. 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal ) 774 SC, Anil Sharma and Ors FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 22 of 54 Vs State of Jharkhand, XIV. 2002 (1) JCC 385 SC, State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh XV. 2010 CRI L J 448 SC, Neelu Chopra & Anr Vs Bharti
21) In State of Punjab Vs. Gian Kaur and Anr, 1998 III AD (S.C) 127, Hon'ble Apex Court disbelieved the dying declaration on the ground that the deceased had 100% burns and the thumb marks of deceased appearing on the dying declaration had clear ridges and curves, evidence of the doctor was not fond reliable because he failed to give satisfactory explanation as to how such thumb mark could appear on the dying declaration when deceased had 100% burns over her body; The Autopsy Doctor who conducted the postmortem had categorically stated that there were 100% burns over the whole body and both the thumbs of the deceased were totally burnt. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the accused was rightly given benefit of doubt by the Hon'ble High Court in view of the inconsistent evidence in this case. There was no other evidence except the dying declaration of the deceased. In this case on scrutinizing the evidence of material witnesses it was found that in their cross-examination most part of their evidence in the court had not been deposed while being examined u/s 161 CrPC and therefore by no stretch of imagination those witness could be held to be reliable witness so that prosecution could rely upon their testimony for conviction by accused.
22) In Tarun @ Gautam Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (4) Crimes 260 SC it was held that the deposition of the maid that accused used to assault the deceased almost daily was FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 23 of 54 confronted with her statement u/s 161 CrPC wherein it did not find mention, it was held to be material omission which would discredit her version in the court.
23) In State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajender Singh , 1998 (3) CC Cases (SC) 93 , one witness deposed before the court that he tried to snatch gun from the accused but he had stated nothing regarding snatching of gun in his statement to the police. It was held that it was an omission on a vital point that amounts to contradiction and creates a serious doubt about truthfulness of his version.
24) In Mohd Iqbal M. Sheikh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 (2) CC Cases (SC) 58 it was held that if the evidence of a witness is having inherent improbabilities and suffers from contradictions and omissions viz a viz statement made to the police, his whole testimony is unreliable. When all eye witnesses suffers from same infirmities, the question of one corroborating the other would not arise.
25) In Jag Narain Prasad Vs State of Bihar, 1998 (2) CC Cases (SC) 45, it was held that deliberate improvements made by witness indicate that he was not an impartial and truthful witness and had tried to falsely implicate accused by ascribing a positive role to him that he was carrying pistol at the time of incident.
26) In Anil Sharma and others Vs State of Jharkhand, 2004 (3) RCR Criminal 774 (SC), it was held that equal treatment is to be given to the witness of the prosecution as well as defence
27) In The State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh 2002 (1) JCC 385 (SC) it was held that the evidence tendered by defence FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 24 of 54 witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one and the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution. The credibility and trustworthiness ought to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par that of the prosecution.
28) In Neelu Chopra & Anr. V Bharti, 2010 CRLJ 448 (SC), in this case of section 406/498A the complaint was silent about exact role played by inlaws having no allegation regarding offence of cruelty and the complaint was sadly vague it was held that particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing the offence is required to be brought to the notice of the court
29) Ld Addl. PP for the State on the other hand argued that dying declarations of deceased Sangita are true and voluntarily and not result of tutoring, prompting or imagination; she was in fit mental condition when made these dying declarations as she was declared fit for statement by the doctors attending her and Dr Amrit PW18 has also attested her dying declaration mark-A vide endorsement Ex.PW18/B stating that the said statement was recorded by the police official in his presence. Ld. APP for State further argued that even the dying declaration of Sangita has been corroborated by the testimony of PW1 Madan Lal, PW2 Dhano Devi, PW4 Rattan Lal who were present on the spot at the time of burning of Sangita. Regarding the improvements and contradictions in the statement of witnesses Ld Addl. PP for the State argued that the same are minor in nature and had not adversely affected the FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 25 of 54 prosecution case. Regarding the deposition of DW1 Rahul and DW2 Vishnu Chand it is argued that they have deposed falsely in favour of accused persons as Rahul was son of accused Praveen and nephew of accused Geeta whereas DW2 Vishnu Chand is their brother. It is therefore submitted that the deposition of DW1 Rahul and DW2 Vishnu Chand is not reliable being interested witnesses and near relatives of the accused persons. Ld. APP for State further argued that the ingredients of cruelty committed by accused Shanti Devi upon the deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry has also been established beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for State therefore vehementally argued that prosecution has succeeding in proving its case and accused persons are liable to be convicted.
30) I have considered the rival submissions made at bar and gone through the material on record.
31) As per the testimony of PW12 Dr. Abhishek Yadav who conducted the postmortem the cause of death is septicemia produced as a complication of ante-mortem infected superficial to deep flame burns involving about 95% of the total body surface area. The testimony of other medical witnesses including PW18 Amrit, PW19 Dr. Meenakshi and the oral testimony of other prosecution witnesses from PW1 Madan Lal, PW2 Dhano Devi and PW4 Rattan Lal and even testimony of DW1 Rahul and DW2 Vishnu has sufficiently established that deceased Sangeeta had got burn injuries on 18/5/2008 and thereafter succumbed to those injuries on 31/5/2008. In view of this prosecution evidence in that regard and the admitted testimony of defence witnesses, it is FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 26 of 54 established that deceased Sangita had sustained burn injuries and as a result she had died in the hospital. The only dispute left is whether she was set on fire by accused Geeta and Praveen after pouring kerosene oil upon her as is being alleged by the prosecution?
32) Let us examine the evidence of the prosecution to ascertain whether it has established the fact that deceased Sangita was set on fire by accused Geeta and Praveen after pouring kerosene oil her? In order to establish the said fact the prosecution is relying upon the DD no. 18A Ex. PW9/C, MLC Ex. PW19/A containing oral dying declaration of Sangita recorded by Dr. Meenakshi, dying declaration of Sangita dated 18/5/2008 Ex. PW21/C recorded by SI Har Prasad, dying declaration of Sangita dated 19/5/08 mark-A recorded by SI Har Prasad attested by Dr. Amrit alongwith oral testimony of PW1 Madan Lal, PW2 Dhano Devi, PW3 HC. A. K.Krishana, PW4 Rattan Lal and PW5 Raj.
33) Since MLC Ex. PW18/A containing oral dying declaration of Sangita, statement of deceased Ex. PW21/C dated 18/5/08 and statement mark-A dated 19/5/08 both recorded by SI Har Prasad has been pressed as is being piece of evidence admissible under section 32 of Indian evidence Act, therefore, in order to appreciate the said piece of evidence whether it qualifies the definition of the dying declaration of the deceased admissible under section 32 of the Indian evidence Act, I find it necessary to discuss the relevant law on the admissibility of dying declaration. On the basis of law on this subject propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court, following principle of law regarding admissibility and probative value of dying FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 27 of 54 declaration can be summarised as under:-
A: While examining a dying declaration, the court has to apply the strictest scrutiny and the close circumspection:
".... dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and not being a statement on Oath so that its truth could be tested by cross-examination, the Courts have to apply the strictest scrutiny and the closes circumspection to the statement before acting upon it." K. Ramachandra Reddy And Anr. Vs. The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994: 1976 3 SCC 618.
B: If there is more than one dying declaration, the court has to be satisfied that there is no inconsistency between them.
"....(6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view the circumstances like...........that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it." Khushal Rao V. State of Bombay, [1958] S.C.R 552.
C: The court has to be satisfied that the mind of the maker of the dying declaration has not been impaired in any manner and that he was in a fit state of mind while the dying declaration was being recorded "... The court must satisfy to itself that the person making the dying declaration was conscious and fit to make statement for FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 28 of 54 which purposes not only the evidence of persons recording dying declaration but also cumulative effect of the other evidence including the medical evidence and the circumstances must be taken into consideration" Nallapati Sivaiah Vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P., Crl. Appeal no. 1315 of 2005, decided on 26/09/07.
"... the court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement"- K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. Vs The Public Prosecutor. AIR 1976 SC 1994: 1976 3 SCC 618.
D: The court has to be satisfied that the person who made the dying declaration was not tutored-
"... the court has to be on guard against the statement of the deceased being as a result of either tutoring , prompting or a product of his imagination" K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. Vs The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994: 1976 3 SCC 618.
E: The court has to further be satisfied that the dying declaration is not the product of the imagination:-
"the court has to be on guard against the statement of the deceased being a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of him imagination" K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. Vs The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994: 1976 3 SCC 618.
FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 29 of 54 F: The Court has to be satisfied that the dying declaration was not as a result of rancour:-
"The Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in....... and that he was making the statement without any influence or rancour: K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. Vs The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994: 1976 3 SCC 618.
G: Whereas in the case of the testimony of a competent witness there could be a presumption that the person's statement on Oath is true, there is no such presumption in the case of a dying declaration:-
" 3. There can be a presumption that testimony of a competent witness given on Oath is true, as the opposite party can use the weapon of cross-examination, inter alia, for rebutting the presumption.
But a dying declaration is not a deposition in the court. It is neither made on Oath nor in the presence of an accused. Its credence cannot be tested by cross-examination. Those inherent weakness attached to a dying declaration would be justify any initial presumption to be drawn that the dying declaration contains only the truth." Dandu Lakshmi Reddy Vs State of A.P, AIR 1999 SC 3255: 1999 Crl J 4287: JT 1999 (6) SC 166: 1999 (5) SCALE/118: (1999) 7 SCC 69.
H: After the Dying declaration have been proved , the court must apply its mind to ensure that there are-
FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 30 of 54
a) no inherent improbability
b) no inherent contradictions "13. In view of the impossibility of conducting the test on the said version with the touchstone of cross-examination we have to adopt other tests in order to satisfy our judicial conscience that those two dying declarations contain nothing but truth.
14. First among such tests is to scrutinise whether there are inherent improbabilities in that version. We are unable to detect any such improbability inherent therein. The next test is whether there is any inherent contradiction therein." Dandu Lakshmi Reddy Vs State of A.P, AIR 1999 SC 3255: 1999 Crl J 4287: JT 1999 (6) SC 166: 1999 (5) SCALE/118: (1999) 7 SCC 69.
I: When there are inconsistencies in the dying declaration, the prosecution cannot seek to rely on what is common to the dying declarations "We are reluctant to approve of this mechanical test of the greatest common measure in the two dying declarations to fasten guilt on the appellants for there are certain suspicious circumstances which should require dependable evidence in corroboration of the dying declaration." Rasheed Beg and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 332: 1974 CrL J361: (1974) 4 SCC 264. J: Dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 31 of 54 stands on a much higher footing than an oral dying declaration " A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character". K. Ramachandra Reddy And Anr. Vs. The Public Prosecutor. AIR 1976 SC 1994:
1976 3 SCC 618."
K: the dying declaration first in point of time must be preferred:
Where there is more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declarations could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted. (See Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1982 SC 839).
34) In Amol Singh Vs State of M.P., (SC) 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 602: 2008 (4) R.A.J. 343: 2008 (5) S.C.C. 468, it was held that :
"13. Law relating to appreciation of evidence in the form of more than one dying declaration is well settled. Accordingly, it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 32 of 54 found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. 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. (see : Kundula Bala Subramanyam v. State of A.P. (1993) 2 SCC 684). 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 scrutinizing the contents of various dying declaration, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances."
35) In the light of law referred supra I will discuss the three dying declarations relied by the prosecution:-
36) The first dying declaration is the narration of the history of burn by the deceased to Dr. Meenakshi PW19 who had examined her in Doctor Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 18/5/2008 at about
2.00pm where she was brought by the PCR accompanied by her husband. PW19 Dr. Meenakshi has deposed as under:-
"On 18/5/2008 I was working as CMO (casualty) in the RML hospital. On that day at about 2pm Sangeeta W/o Vishnu was brought in the casualty in burnt condition by SI Hussain Ali with the alleged history of burns poured kerosene by herself as told by the patient.
On examination:- I found Sangeeta was conscious and oriented and clinically no abnormality discovered, her vitals are stable, approximately she was having 90% burns.
FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 33 of 54 On local examination:- superficial burns were found all over the body including face , ear, neck, upper and lower limbs, chest, abdomen, pelvis , sparing pubic area also including full back, hips, charring of hair, sparing right foot and lower 1/3rd of lower leg I prepared the MLC Ex. PW19/A in detail which bears my signature at point- A."
37) Thus in the very first statement to be considered as her dying declaration under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act deceased Sangita has not implicated accused Geeta and Praveen to be the persons who had set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil upon her.
38) The second dying declaration is statement of deceased Ex.PW21/C recorded by SI Har Prasad on 18/5/2008 after being declared fit for statement by the Doctor at 3.00pm. The transcription of statement of Sangita is as under:-
"mai pata uprokt per pariwar sahit rahati hoo or ghar ka kam-kaz karti hoo. Mai kitchen me gai or meri badi Nanad Praveen va Geeta ne mere upar mitti ka tail dal diya or Praveen ne tilli jala kar aag laga di mai bahar bathroom ki traph bhagi or mere patti ne mere upar pani dal diya joki mere patti Vishnu ka koi dosh nahi hai. Jo ushi doran policewale aagay or mujhe haspatal le aaye."
39) The third dying declaration is statement mark-A recorded on 19/5/2008 by SI Har Prasad and attested by PW18 Dr Amrit and the prosecution has also relied upon the DD entry no. 14A Ex.PW21/E recorded in the Police Station Pahar Ganj on 19/5/2008 at about 11.30am which states that SI Jagdish Prasad has sent a message from RML hospital by telephone that Sangita W/o Vishnu FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 34 of 54 who was admitted in burnt condition wants to make statement again. It is further find mentioned in the DD no. 14A that Investigating Officer or SDM may be sent for that purpose. The said DD was brought in the notice of SHO and SI Har Parsad was accordingly informed to report at RML hospital.
40) The MLC of deceased was again presented before the doctor on duty on 29/5/2008 at about 12.15pm and Dr. K. Vijayanta PW17 has made endorsement that patient was fit for giving statement. In this second dying declaration again recorded by SI Har Prasad and attested by the doctor Dr. Amrit the deceased has implicated both the accused Praveen and Geeta alleging that all her three sister -in-laws including both accused had been quarreling with her on trifle matters. She has further stated that her sister -in- laws Geeta and Sita were frequently visited their parents house and accused Praveen was always living there. She has further stated that on 18/5/2008 at about 12.45pm she went to the kitchen for bringing water in the meantime accused Praveen and Geeta both came in the kitchen and picked up a plastic cane containing kerosene oil from adjacent store and poured kerosene oil upon her and thereafter accused Praveen had lit the fire with match stick and accordingly set her on fire. She has further stated that the fire engulfed her whole body on which she ran towards bathroom and after reaching there she became unconscious. She did not know who poured water upon her and regained consciousness after pouring water and found that her father -in-law Prem Chand and her uncle were pouring water upon her and her husband Vishnu brought out a loongi and after FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 35 of 54 tearing the same put the same on her and clung her to his body. Thereafter police van came and her husband and father rushed her to Lady Harding Hospital. On reaching Lady Harding hospital she was sent to RML hospital. She has further stated that her husband and father -in-law Prem Chand were not at fault as her mother -in-law Shanti Devi used to torture her by saying that she will give her all properties to her daughters.
41) Ld counsel for accused has argued that statement mark-A of deceased dated 19/5/2008 has been fabricated and manipulated in connivance with doctor PW18 Dr. Amrit. It is argued that thumb impression mark-A does not belong to deceased Sangita because her both hands were totally burnt, she could not put her thumb impression showing all the ridges and curves on it which is contrary to the medical evidence on record. It is further argued that DD no. 14A has been manipulated in the Police Station because SI Jagdish Prasad who has telephonically informed from the RML hospital has not been examined as witness for the reasons best known to the prosecution. It is also argued that when there was sufficient time for getting the second statement recorded by the SDM/Executive Magistrate, there is no explanation as to why the SDM/Executive Magistrate was not summoned for recording the second statement of the deceased. It is further argued that deposition of PW21 Har Prasad who has scribed both the dying declarations of the deceased has been assailed in the cross-examination. Similarly, deposition of PW18 Dr. Amrit has also been assailed in the cross-examination which shows that both these dying declarations have been FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 36 of 54 manipulated having not been recorded at the instance of the deceased.
42) Ld Addl. PP for the state on the other hand submitted that the dying declaration mark-A dated 19/5/2008 has been duly attested by the Dr. Amrit (PW18) who has successfully with stood the test of cross-examination. It is further argued that PW18 Dr. Amrit has clearly stated that the statement mark-A of deceased Sangita was attested by him vide endorsement Ex. PW18/B and the said statement was recorded by the police official in his presence. In his cross-examination PW18 stated that police official took more than 30 minutes in recording the statement mark-A but he could not tell the time when the statement was recorded. Ld defence counsel however argued that the doctor was not aware about the time when the statement was recorded and the MLC does not find mention the time as to when the said statement was recorded and all these facts shows that same has been manipulated having not been recorded in the presence of doctor as is being claimed by the prosecution. Ld Addl. PP for the State has relied upon the recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Karuppasamy, 2009 I AD (CR) (S.C) 80, wherein it was held that the dying declaration in case certified by the doctor attending the deceased clearly stating that she was in a fit condition to make statement and statement having been recorded by the police constable in the hospital, same is reliable and the evidence of the doctor cannot be discarded without giving reason for doing so. In the said case the doctor has made following observations:-
FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 37 of 54 "Certified that the patient Smt. Kamalam was conscious at the time of taking the dying declaration and taken in my presence."
43) Ld Addl. PP for the state has also referred the case of Jaishree Anant Khandekar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 III AD (Cr) (S.C.) 264 in the said case there was in all five dying declarations which matched in their essential particulars and the statement given in the dying declaration was fairly consistent having endorsement that the same has been read over and explained to the declarant and further evidence of PW4 in substantial part corroborates the facts stated in the dying declaration, Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold as under:-
"56. It is also not in dispute that the declarant lived for more than fifteen days after the aforesaid incident. Therefore, the victim was physically in a position to give the declaration. Doctors have also opined that the declarant was conscious enough to make the declaration and all the judicially evolved rules of caution were observed in the instant case. That being the position, this Court finds no error on the part of the trial court and High Court in finding the appellant guilty and convicting her under section 302."
44) I have gone through the evidence of PW18 Dr. Amrit in whose presence the statement mark-A of the deceased was recorded by PW21 SI Har Prasad alongwith statement of Investigating Officer who has recorded the statement. PW21 SI Har Prasad has deposed that on 19/5/2008 on receiving the DD no. 14A Ex.PW21/E regarding Sangita wanted to give further statement he reached at the hospital and obtained the opinion from the doctor on the MLC at FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 38 of 54 point Ex.PW17/A regarding fitness of the Sangita for making statement. He has recorded her statement Ex. PW18/B which was counter signed by doctor of Burn and Plastic Surgery ward. He had recorded the statement of Sangita on her dictation in the presence of doctor on which she put her right thumb impression at point-A. In the cross-examination by Ld defence counsel he has stated that he did not enquire from SI Jagdish Prasad who has sent the information to Police Station Pahar Ganj vide DD no. 14A Ex. PW21/E; he did not cite the duty constable of RML hospital as witness who was posted there on 18/5/2008 and 19/5/2008. He has further stated that he had recorded statement of Sangita on 19/5/2008 only once. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW21/DE to be the statement of Sangita dated 19/5/2008 which he has admitted to have recorded but under section 161 CrPC. In that regard he has further deposed in his cross-examination that he did not remember at what time statement of Sangita Ex. PW24/DE was recorded by him but it was recorded after statement Ex. PW18/B. He further stated in the cross-examination that he cannot tell as to how much time was taken in recording the statement Ex. PW18/B and Ex. PW21/DE. He further stated that he had obtained the fitness certificate from the doctor for recording the statement of the deceased Ex. PW21/DE. He further stated that he did not attest the statement Ex. PW18/N as the same was attested by the doctor. He has denied the suggestion that attestation of the doctor at point-X on Ex. PW18/B was obtained subsequently by him and said statement has been fabricated.
FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 39 of 54 45) Ld counsel for the accused therefore vehementally argued that PW21 Investigating Officer SI Har Prasad in his cross-
examination has been found to be hiding truth as he has stated that he has recorded the statement of Sangita once on the said date whereas he has recorded two statements. Ld defence counsel argued that these contradictory statement of the Investigating Officer in the cross-examination shows that the statement of Sangita dated 19/5/2008 has been manipulated and fabricated by the Investigating Officer. Further, Sangita could not have put her thumb impression on the said statement because the Investigating Officer SI Har Prasad PW21 in his cross-examination admitted that he had noticed in the hospital that both hands of the Sangita were badly burnt. Ld defence counsel further argued that PW21 SI Har Prasad has also manipulated the other dying declaration Ex. PW21/C on 18/5/2008 because in his cross-examination he has stated that statement of Sangita Ex. PW21/C was recorded by him prior to the statement of Madan Lal Ex.PW1/A but he did not get the FIR registered on the basis of statement of Sangita Ex. PW21/C because Sangita could not give the complete statement. He further admitted that he did not make endorsement on Ex. PW21/C that it was an incomplete statement and that Sangita was unable to continue with the statement. Ld defence counsel vehementally argued that FIR registered on the statement of Madan Lal Ex. PW1/A and explanation given by the Investigating Officer for the endorsing the statement of Sangita Ex. PW21/C for registration of the FIR is not satisfactory which shows that Sangita had never made the statement FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 40 of 54 Ex. PW21/C on the alleged date and for that reason FIR was registered on the statement of Madan Lal her father. It is further argued that since there is no endorsement of the doctor or the Investigating Officer SI Har Prasad PW21 to the effect that Sangita could not complete her statement and her statement allegedly being recorded before the statement Ex. PW1/A, there is no satisfactory explanation from the prosecution as to why the case FIR was not got registered on the statement of Sangita. Regarding the attestation of dying declaration mark-A by Dr. Amrit it is found that he had not declared Sangita fit for statement for the purpose of recording her statement and has simply attested the statement allegedly recorded by the Investigating Officer SI Har Prasad. In his cross-examination PW18 Dr. Amrit has stated that due to lapse of time he cannot say if Dr. Vijayanta was present or not when the statement mark-A was recorded. He further stated that the said doctor was on duty on that day. He cannot tell the time when the statement was recorded. PW17 Dr. K.Vijayanta has deposed that on 19/5/2008 he was posted in RML hospital as Junior Resident under the department of Burns and Plastic Surgery and at about 12.15pm he had declared the patient fit for making statement vide endorsement Ex. PW17/A on the MLC no. 6240/08. Ld counsel for accused persons vehementally argued that PW17 K.Vijayanta has no where examined the patient regarding her physical and mental condition for making the statement and has given certificate of fitness in mechanical way on the basis of MLC which was admittedly produced before him by the police. It is further argued FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 41 of 54 that PW17 Dr. K. Vijayanta in his cross-examination admitted that no separate application was made by the Investigating Officer for the said purpose. Ld defence counsel therefore argued that Sangita has not made any statement on 19/5/2008 and same has been manipulated and fabricated by the Investigating Officer .
46) I have considered the submissions of the Ld defence counsel to the effect that Sangita was declared fir for statement on 18/5/2008 by PW17 Dr. K. Vijayanta who admittedly had not done the attestation on the statement. Interestingly PW18 Dr. Amrit who has attested the statement mark-A by making endorsement Ex.PW18/B has deposed that he was not sure if Dr. K.Vijayanta was present or not when the statement was recorded. It does not appeal to my conscience as to what prevented Dr. Amrit for making endorsement regarding fit for statement of Sangita when her statement was being recorded. If the endorsement fit for statement was made by Dr. K. Vijayanta PW17 then he must have been present in all probabilities with the patient when her statement was being recorded. This ambiguity of the situation has not been explained either by both the doctors PW17 K. Vijayanta and PW18 Dr. Amrit or by the Investigating Officer SI Har Prasad PW21 who has scribed the said statement but has not endorsed the same having been recorded by him.
47) The dying declaration Ex. PW21/C recorded on 18/5/2008 is allegedly recorded after declaring the patient fit for statement by Dr. Sourab PW23 who has declared the patient fit for statement vide endorsement Ex. PW23/A on the MLC Ex. PW19/A having been FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 42 of 54 made at about 3.00pm. Admittedly, the said doctor has not attested the said dying declaration as having been done by the PW18 Dr.Amrit when statement mark-A was recorded. Admittedly, there is no endorsement by the doctor that patient was not fit for making the complete statement as is being alleged by the SI Har Prasad. If that was the situation SI Har Prasad must have obtained the attestation of the doctor in that regard to the effect that patient was not able to complete her statement. In the absence of any documentary proof and medical proof, explanation given by the Investigating Officer SI Har Prasad about the incomplete statement of Sangita Ex. PW21/C having made on 18/5/2008 is not satisfactory and seems to create a doubt in the story of the prosecution that Sangita has made the alleged dying declaration in fit state of mind and had put her thumb impression at point- A on the same.
48) PW1 Madan Lal in his cross-examination stated that his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital at about 2.00/2.30pm. PW21 SI Har Prasad has stated that he has recorded the statement of Sangita Ex. PW21/C before recording the statement of Madan Lal Ex. PW1/A. As per endorsement of the doctor the patient was declared fit for statement at about 3.00pm which shows that the said statement could not have been recorded before 3.00pm and those contradictory stands of SI Har Prasad viz a viz statement of PW1 Madan Lal as his statement was recorded at about 2.00/2.30pm meaning thereby the statement of Madan Lal was recorded first before recording the alleged statement FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 43 of 54 Ex.PW21/C of Sangita. PW1 Madan Lal has further stated that in his cross-examination when he reached to the hospital alongwith his daughter and son -in-law she was conscious and the doctor who attended her in RML hospital had talked with her. He further deposed that Sangita was badly burnt including her hands. He further deposed that statement of Sangita might have been recorded at 3.00pm on 18/5/2008 and he was present in the hospital but he was outside the room of his daughter.
49) Ld defence counsel, therefore, vehementally argued that Sangita had made the first dying declaration to Doctor Meenakshi PW19 and has spoken the truth that she got burn injuries because of pouring kerosene oil by herself. It is further argued that her subsequent statements are manipulated and fabricated though not admitted to have been made by her and in case the same are presumed to be made by her the said statements are result of tutoring and prompting by her parents in the hospital who were admittedly present there before her statement was recorded by SI Har Prasad on 18/5/2008 and 19/5/2008. It is therefore argued that statement mark-A and Ex PW21/C of Sangita which are being used as dying declaration by prosecution does not qualify to be the dying declaration, to be admissible under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act as same are result of torturing, prompting and imagination.
50) It is pertinent to mention that the Executive Magistrate PW22 Shri Ajit Kumar had reached in the hospital on 18/5/2008 but did not record the statement of Sangita on the ground that the victim has been married approximately 12 years ago and the case FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 44 of 54 under consideration does not come under the perview of section 176 of the CrPC. He has not even recorded the complete statement of Madan Lal father of deceased perhaps for the reasons that from his part statement it revealed that the victim was married about 12 years ago. In this regard the provision of 174 and 176 CrPC does not restrict the Executive Magistrate from recording the statement of such victim. There was no bar for the Investigating Officer to get the statement recorded from a Judicial Magistrate u/s 164 CrPC because Sangita had died on 31/5/2008 after a period of about 13 days of her sustaining burn injuries. There is no explanation by the Investigating Officer for this inaction on his part.
51) The another important thing to be noted is the first information given to the police of the incident which has been recorded as DD no. 18A in Police Station Pahar Ganj and is proved as Ex. PW9/C which states that ek lady ne railway colony Basant Lane Dargha ke samne aag laga lee hai. IN that regard PW9 HC Lalaram who was working as duty officer in Police Station Pahar Ganj has deposed as under:-
"On 18/5/08 on receiving a message from C-57, Operator at 1.30pm, I recorded DD no. 18 in the Rajnamcha-A. Today I have brought the original DD register, the abovesaid DD number Ex.PW9/C marked to SI Har Prasad and sent through Ct. Sanjiv Kumar"
52) Thus the first dying declaration of Sangita recorded by Dr. Meenakshi PW19 in form of history of sustaining burn injury by her and the information of the incident recorded in DD no. 18A Ex. PW9/C are contradictory to the subsequent statements of Sangita FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 45 of 54 Ex. PW21/C and mark-A which are being pressed as dying declaration by the prosecution .
53) In Ikramuddin Vs. State reported as 2009 III AD (Cr.) (DHC) 274 , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Badar Burrez Ahmad was pleased to hold as under:-
"Admittedly, there was enough time to call a Magistrate but no attempt was made to secure the services of a Magistrate for recording the dying declaration. No person unconnected with the police or the parties were requested to be witness of dying declaration. These circumstances in themselves create a great deal of doubt as to the alleged making of the dying declaration."
54) In the case in hand the Executive Magistrate was summoned but he did not record the statement of the victim for the unjustified reasons. SI Har Prasad recorded the incomplete dying declaration Ex. PW21/C on 18/5/2008 but did not get the same attested from any independent witness. He again recorded the subsequent dying declaration on 19/5/2008 mark-A and got the same attested from Dr. Amrit but the evidence of PW18 Dr. Amrit seems to have been assailed in the cross-examination because he has failed to tell the time when the said statement was recorded. He has even failed to say with certainty if Dr. Vijayanta who has declared Sangita as fit for statement on 19/5/2008 was present or not when her statement was recorded by SI Har Prasad. The fact that he has not declared Sangita fit for statement and his above deposition in cross-examination seems to create a doubt in his testimony wherein he has claimed himself to be present when police officials had FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 46 of 54 recorded statement of Sangita on 19/5/2008. No reason has been assigned by the Investigating Officer as to why he has not secured the services of a judicial Magistrate for recording statement of Sangita under section 164 CrPC on 18th and 19th May, 2008 and subsequent dates till she expired on 31/5/2008. All these discrepancies in the prosecution case leads to the conclusion that the dying declaration mark-A and Ex PW21/C cannot be relied without corroboration from other witnesses if any.
55) It has been argued on behalf of State by the Ld APP that there is sufficient corroboration of the dying declaration from the testimony of PW1 Madan Lal, PW2 Dhano Devi, PW4 Rattan Lal and PW5 Raj who had been present on the spot when Sangita was allegedly set on fire by the accused person. Ld defence counsel in that regard submitted that their testimony in that regard has been assailed in the cross-examination because their testimony suffers from material omissions and improvements in comparison to the statement made to the police. It is further argued that the presence of PW4 Rattan Lal on the spot was doubtful and he has been introduced as a false witness.
56) The presence of PW4 Rattan Lal at the time of incident is established beyond any reasonable doubt from his testimony as well as from the testimony of PW16 ASI Hussain Ali who has stated that on 18/5/2008 he was on duty at the PCR and after receiving information from the control room he reached at M-14, Mahakali Mandir, Railway Colony, Basant Lane, Pahar Ganj and found Sangita w/o Vishnu in burnt condition; she was shifted to RML FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 47 of 54 hospital in his PCR van and father of the victim alongwith her uncle, her father -in-law and her husband were also present at that time
57) I have scrutinized the testimony of PW1 Madan Lal, PW2 Dhano Devi, PW4 Rattan Lal and PW5 Raj to find out whether they have corroborated the dying declaration of Sangita to the extent that the said dying declaration are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond any reasonable doubt.
58) PW1 Madan Lal in his statement Ex. PW1/A on the basis of which case FIR was registered has stated that his younger brother Rattan Lal has told him that Praveen and Geeta sister -in- laws of his daughter had poured kerosene oil upon her and Praveen set her on fire. In his cross-examination he has stated that his daughter told to him about the incident on 18/5/2008 in the house itself after she got fired and he alongwith his son -in-law had rushed her to hospital. He further stated that while on the way Sangita was crying and saying papa mujhe bachalo, bhot dard ho raha hai. Thus it is clear that Sangita has not stated to PW1 about the pouring of kerosene oil upon her by accused Geeta and Praveen.
59) Now I proceed to discuss the evidence of PW4 Rattan Lal he has described the incident as under:-
"My brother was feeling difficulty in breathing and Sangeeta went to fetch water. Praveen's son Rahul was heard shouting that Mami Jal gai Mami Jal gai. I immediately rushed towards that side and Rahul pointed out Sangeeta in burning condition. She was burning badly with flames. She was coming out of the kitchen . I pulled her towards bathroom for pouring water upon her and in FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 48 of 54 that process I also got burn injuries on my left hand. I poured water on Sangeeta for extinguishing her fire and Sangeeta herself also poured water. None from her in laws came forward to pour water. Accused Sangeeta and Parveen (both correctly identified and present in the court) were standing near the gate standing near the gate of the kitchen where they were put her on fire."
60) In his cross-examination he has stated that he could not tell the exact time as to after how much time of leaving of Sangita for fetching of water and shouting of Rahul was heard as he had not seen when Sangita had gone to fetch water; he came to know for the first time from the shouting (screaming) of Rahul about burning of Sangeeta; he was at a distance of 3-4 paces away when he saw flames on the body of Sangita; Rahul came running towards the room and told about the incident where they were sitting; he had witnessed Sangita in burning condition while he was in open space in front of kitchen; till the time Rahul came running and shouting towards the room where they were sitting, they remained sitting and discussing in the same way. In his examination in chief he has stated that when he was helping Sangita to go to bathroom she was saying Praveen and Geeta has set her on fire; SHO enquired from him in the hospital on the same day and also asked from Madan Lal who had told the incident to the police. Ld counsel for the accused argued that statement of Rattan Lal was allegedly recorded u/s 161 CrPC on 03/06/2008 and no statement was recorded on the same day in the hospital about the facts disclosed by him to the SHO and his deposition is even contradictory to the statement recorded by the police. Ld defence counsel pointed out that in the statement FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 49 of 54 recorded by the police Rattan Lal has stated that he had seen that Praveen and Geeta sister in laws of Sangita had poured kerosene oil upon her and accused Praveen had set her on fire. Again a question arises as to why Sangita has not disclosed the role of the accused Praveen and Geeta in the hospital to Dr. Meenakshi if she has narrated the said facts to her uncle Rattan Lal at the time of incident.
61) PW2 Smt Dhanno Devi mother of Sangita was also present at the time of incident. She has deposed that her daughter went to fetch water for her father from kitchen and came out running and shouting that she was burnt by her sister-in-laws Geeta and Praveen. She has further stated that she met her daughter in the hospital who told her that accused Praveen and Geeta had set her on fire and she died in the hospital after about 15 days of the incident. In her cross- examination she has stated that her husband became unconscious and regained consciousness after about 15 minutes. She further deposed that when they came out from the room by hearing alarm she saw that their daughter came out of the kitchen; they came to know about the burning of her daughter from the fact that she came running and crying from the kitchen. Ld defence counsel argued that testimony of PW2 Smt Dhanno Devi is not reliable because she has contradicted the testimony of PW1 Madan Lal , PW4 Rattan Lal and PW5 Smt Raj on all material points because her deposition regarding the fact that her husband regained consciousness after about 15 minutes has been denied even by her husband PW1 Madan Lal and PW4 Rattan Lal. Ld counsel further argued that PW2 Dhanno Devi has stated nothing as to where she has seen accused FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 50 of 54 Praveen and Geeta after she had heard shouts of her daughter coming in burning condition. Ld defence counsel pointed out that PW5 Raj in her cross-examination stated that when they heard the shouts of Rahul they all were in side the room and Vishnu and his mother also sustaining injuries while extinguishing the fire of Sangita. Ld counsel for accused further pointed out that PW5 Smt Raj has deposed in her cross-examination that when Sangita has left the room she could not notice her departure and both the accused Praveen and Geeta were also standing outside near the room when they heard shouts of Rahul who was saying mami jal gai, mami jal gai.
62) I have gone through the examination of PW5 Smt Raj who has deposed that when Sangita was coming in burning condition her husband Vishnu poured some water by saying Sangita taune yeh kya kiya and thereafter Vishnu wrapped some clothes upon Sangita. She categorically stated that she has not heard Sangita as she was badly burnt. Thus after going through the testimony of these material witnesses whose presence on the record on the spot about the incident has been established by the prosecution, I have noticed that there is nothing substantial in their testimony so as to corroborate the dying declaration of Sangita which has been recorded by SI Har Prasad and has been proved as mark-A and Ex.PW21/C. I find force in the arguments of Ld counsel for accused persons that the contradictions and improvements in their testimony of these witnesses who are material witnesses raises serious doubt in their testimony wherein PW4 Rattan Lal has stated that Sangita told FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 51 of 54 him that she was set on fire by accused Geeta and Praveen after pouring kerosene oil upon her. Even testimony of PW5 Raj is supporting the contentions of Ld defence counsel who has argued that Sangita had caught fire either accidentally or because of her own in the kitchen and at that time all her family members PW1 Madan Lal , PW2 Dhano Devi, PW4 Rattan Lal and PW5 Raj were sitting in the room when Rahul son of accused Praveen came shouting by saying "mami jal gai, mami jal gai". Smt Raj has categorically stated that she has not heard anything from the mouth of Sangita when she was coming out in burning condition and when she was helped by her husband by pouring water and wrapped her in a cloth. Moreover, when father of deceased had accompanied her to the hospital she has not told that she was set on fire by Geeta and Praveen rather she has stated that papa mujhe bachalo, bhot dard ho raha hai.
63) From the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that dying declaration of Sangita Ex. PW21/C and mark-A are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons because the said dying declaration seems to be result of either tutoring or prompting or product of an imagination. The said dying declaration in view of the above discussion are not found to be true and voluntarily so that conviction of the accused persons can be based on them without corroboration. Admittedly, there are more than one statements of Sangita in the nature of dying declaration and the statement first in time recorded by Dr.Meenakshi wherein she has reported to have stated that she has sustained burn injuries because of pouring FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 52 of 54 kerosene by herself. The law laid down Mohd Iqbal M. Sheikh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra referred (Supra) the statement first in the point of time needs to be preferred upon the subsequent statements which are in the nature of the dying declaration of the deceased. Moreover, these dying declaration of the deceased were required to be consistent in their nature but prosecution has failed to satisfy this court as to why SI Har Prasad has not recorded complete statement of Sangita on 18/5/2008. The prosecution has failed to satisfy this court about the request of Sangita on 19/5/2008 for recording of her subsequent statement because intimation was allegedly sent by SI Jagdish Chand who is neither cited nor examined as witness to give credence to the version of the prosecution in that regard.
64) The allegations of cruelties by accused Shanti Devi upon deceased Sangita for insufficient dowry has also not established beyond reasonable doubt . It has been admitted by the mother and father of Sangita PW1 and PW2 in their evidence that they had not made any complaint against her -in-laws including accused Shanti Devi till 18/5/2008 about the harassment of Sangita on account of demand of dowry. Therefore, all the allegations of harassment and demand of dowry by the accused either seems to be an after thought because of the incident of burning of Sangita in which she had died on 31/5/2008.
65) The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that kerosene was poured upon Sangita before she was set on fire by accused Geeta and Praveen. It is so because FSL-report FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 53 of 54 shows that kerosene could not be detected/found on any of the articles seized from the spot except the cane containing kerosene oil.
66) For the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 18/5/2008 deceased Sangita was set on fire by accused Geeta and Praveen after pouring kerosene oil upon her. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Sangita before her death was being harassed by accused Shanti Devi for not bringing sufficient dowry. The prosecution has therefore failed to bring home the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, The accused persons are accordingly acquitted.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31st May, 2010 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ/SPECIALJUDGE(NDPS) (WEST)DELHI FIR no. 135/08 Page no. 54 of 54