Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the defence counsel and have perused the record including the evidence led and given my thoughts to the rival contentions put forth.

Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that in her dying declaration deceased had implicated the accused saying she was put on fire by the accused and prayed for the conviction of the accused.

Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses have supported the version of the accused and from evidence it has been proved on record that at the time of occurrence accused was not present at his house but had taken Mrs. Manjeet Kaur (PW6) and her daughter Sharandeep Kaur to Delhi University for examination and while returning, he received the telephone call and State Vs. Amarjeet Singh then had reached hospital alongwith said Smt Manjeet Kaur (PW6). It was also argued that the accused never subjected his wife to cruelty nor demanded any dowry or any sum of money which even parents of the deceased admitted in the course of their evidence. Also was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the deceased had committed suicide and there was no live link of her act of suicide with any act of the accused as accused never subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment after their marriage and also soon before her death. It was also argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the incomplete dying declaration of the deceased was shaken and she give different version as to who had put her on fire and even gave imaginary names as of her sister­in­law (Nanad) and the maid. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and prayed for acquittal of the accused. RELEVANT LAW:

23. After careful scrutiny of Ex PW3/A, the incomplete dying declaration of deceased, it is clear that it is inter se State Vs. Amarjeet Singh contradictory, appears to be suspicious, embodied with imaginary names as relatives, even attributing the act of pouring of oil, putting her on fire not only on accused but also on girl working there, Nanad Aggarwal as well. As per version of PW3, the then SDM, deceased was then confused. Aforesaid incomplete dying declaration of deceased suffers from infirmities. Even it differs from prosecution version as the outcome of the investigation had been that the accused was not present at his house when at 9 am on 17/4/2010 deceased got burnt since at that time he had gone to the Unversity with Smt Manjeet Kaur (PW6) and her daughter Sharandeep Kaur which was also ascertained in the course of investigation and has been so testified in court by PW6 and the other prosecution witnesses as herein before elicited. In terms of the law laid in the case of Gokul (Supra), accordingly the said dying declaration cannot be relied nor can be acted upon nor can be made the basis of conviction of the accused.