Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5) The incident in question took place on 1.10.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. The deceased sustained burn injuries when she was cohabiting with husband in Shindewadi. Information about the incident was given to the relatives of the deceased on parents' side and it was informed that she had sustained burn injuries due to explosion of kerosene fred stove. The relatives of the deceased rushed to the hospital where the deceased was admitted. She disclosed to the relatives including her brother Vikas (PW 1) that on the day of incident, accused No. 1 held her, accused No. 2 fetched kerosene from the house and accused No. 3, her husband set fre to her in front of the matrimonial house. She disclosed that when she shouted, the neighbours rushed to the spot and then she was shifted to the hospital after extinguishing the fre. In the hospital, the frst dying declaration came to be recorded by the police and second dying declaration came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate.

13) If the aforesaid two dying declarations are compared with each other, it can be said that in the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, she did not disclose about the demand of money from in laws, she did not give particulars of the illtreatment or reason for the illtreatment. On the other hand, she disclosed that on the day of incident, there was quarrel and so, she had requested her brother to come to the matrimonial house to take her to the house of her parents. Her brother had come there, but she was not sent to the house of her parents by her in laws and after that the incident took place. In the second dying declaration, she tried to blame even accused No. 4 Jyoti, sister in law by saying that she had participated in the incident. This lady had just delivered a child, within 6-7 days prior to the date of incident. The Trial Court has given the decision of acquittal in her favour though there is such disclosure against her in Exh. 23.

14) If both the dying declarations are considered together, it can be said that it is not the version of the deceased that she had disclosed about the illtreatment and illegal demand of the accused persons to her parents prior to the date of incident and even in the frst dying declaration, it was not disclosed that specifc amount was demanded from her prior to her return from the house of parents where she had stayed for about two months due to the so called illtreatment. In the frst dying declaration, she has disclosed that her ornaments were taken away by the in laws, but in the second dying declaration there is no whisper about snatching or taking away of the ornaments.

24) In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Parveen Kumar reported as AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 1277, it is laid down by the Apex Court that if there are many dying declarations and in one dying declaration some persons are named and in other dying declaration more persons are named, the scrutiny needs to be made more carefully and if probabilities like stated above are created, the evidence of dying declaration can be discarded. In the present matter, in one dying declaration the deceased had named accused No. 4, but in the frst dying declaration the deceased had not named accused No. 4. This circumstance cannot be ignored. The inconsistencies also need to be considered and they may include the manner in which the incident took place. In the present matter, in one dying declaration specifc description of the part played by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 is mentioned, but in the second dying declaration there is no such description of the part played by the accused persons. In the second dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, disclosure is vague and it is mentioned that all the accused poured kerosene on the person and set fre to her. She named the lady who had just delivered the child. In ordinary course, it was not possible that the said lady had come out of the house by keeping the baby inside of the house and she had taken part in the incident. In any case, it does not look probable that all the accused had dragged the deceased up to the open space, there they had poured kerosene on her person and there they had set fre to her. In ordinary course if they wanted to fnish the deceased, the incident would have taken place inside of the house. Further, they had only refused to send the deceased to the parent's house. If they did not want the deceased to live in their house, they would have allowed the brother of the deceased to take her to the house of her parents.