Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Before referring to the two dying declarations both dated 31.10.2013, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that certain dates are important and need to be noted by this Court. The relevant dates as pointed out are that first dying declaration "najai bayan" was given to the police, ASI Sandeep Shrimal on 31.10.2013 around 06:05 p.m. and the second dying declaration was recorded by Judicial Officer Dinesh Kumar Gharwal also on 31.10.2013 around 09:15 p.m. There is not much gap between the two dying declarations as recorded on (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 12:31:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:42426-DB] (8 of 23) [CRLA-798/2016] 31.10.2013, however, there is serious improvement and exaggeration in the second dying declaration recorded at 09:15 p.m. The first dying declaration is one page document where as the second one is a detailed one running into almost four pages.
The exaggeration of the false incident in the second one creates doubt about the veracity of facts narrated by the deceased. In the first dying declaration not much facts were stated, however, the way deceased narrated the facts in her second dying declaration recorded just three hours after the first one shows that same was given with the intention to falsely implicate the appellant husband and her mother into the case.

4. The learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Divya Bapna, submitted that the first dying declaration was recorded by the SI Sandeep Shrimal at 06:05 p.m. in the absence of the treating doctor. There is no justification in the record of trial court, of the act of the Investigating Officer, of submitting the application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur for recording the dying declaration of the deceased after he recorded the first (najai bayan) dying declaration at 06:05 p.m. Learned counsel further submitted that on the request of the police the second dying declaration was recorded by Judicial Officer immediately at 09:15 p.m. on 31.10.2013 in the presence of Dr. Jitendra Nagar, the resident doctor. By referring to the second dying declaration, recorded by the Judicial Officer, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that Dr. Jitendra Nagar informed the Judicial Officer by his (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 12:31:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:42426-DB] (9 of 23) [CRLA-798/2016] certificate, that the deceased is in fit state of mind to give her statement. Though the certificate of medical fitness of deceased- Vandana Soni was given by the resident Dr. Jitendra Nagar, however, the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of Dr. Jitendra Nagar or any other doctor who treated the deceased. The Investigating Officer further committed a serious blunder by not recording the statement of the Dr. Jitendra Nagar, who treated the deceased and was present at the time of second dying declaration, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding her condition when she was brought to the hospital and during her treatment in the hospital. In the absence of statement of Dr. Jitendra Nagar there is no evidence in the form of medical opinion on record about the burns as suffered by the deceased, about her medical condition, percentage of burn, treatment given to the deceased immediately and her medical condition to give statement. The serious blunder which the Investigating Officer committed continued even during the trial as the prosecution did not produce the Dr. Jitendra Nagar or any other doctor who treated the deceased in the hospital. By not producing Dr. Jitendra Nagar or any treating doctor for evidence during the trial, the prosecution committed a serious blunder and grave illegality as there was no testimony of any treating doctor to inform the condition of the deceased and the treatment given to her. Though the treating doctor gave certificate regarding the fit mental state of the deceased at the time of (Uploaded on 23/09/2025 at 12:31:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:42426-DB] (10 of 23) [CRLA-798/2016] second dying declaration as recorded by the Judicial Officer, however, in the absence of statement of the treating doctor, Dr. Jitendra Nagar or any other treating doctor, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and/or before the learned trial court, regarding the fit mental state, medicine given and their impact and condition, the complete case of the prosecution is seriously doubtful and further even though the Judicial Officer recorded the statement of deceased still same cannot considered to be true and correct testimony of the deceased because the doctor failed to state through his evidence regarding the state of mind of the deceased and what treatment given to her. Therefore, both the dying declarations are seriously doubtful and cannot be the basis for convicting the appellant. To further cement her arguments, regarding the impact of non recording of the statement of the treating doctor on the prosecution case and the consequential benefit of this to the accused, she cited the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Vs. State of Punjab passed in Criminal Appeal No. 565/2012 dated 07.12.2023. In which paras 10 and 11 a similar issue came to be examined by Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reproduced as under:-

The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that in the case of Praveen (supra) the person who recorded the dying declaration failed to verify from the treaty Doctor as to whether the deceased was administered pain killers or sedatives for reducing her pain as in that case also the deceased suffered the burn injuries. In the absence of evidence of the treating doctor there was nothing on record to ascertain the correct physical condition of the deceased at the time of statement. In the present case while recording the second dying declaration on 31.10.2013, Exhibit P-28, Judicial Officer in his statement, recorded as PW-20, specifically stated in cross-examination "eSaus MkWDVj ls ;g ugha iwNk fd ejht dks fdrus le; iwoZ nokbZ;ka nh xbZ Fkh vkSj mldk D;k izHkko FkkA ;g lgh gS fd izek.k i= ij MkWDVj ftrsUnz ukxj dh eksgj ij fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh dk vadu gS o cuZ ;wfuV dks fo"ks'kK banzkt ugha gSA" on the basis of the above quoted lines the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the above judgment rightly applicable to the facts of present case and declares the complete case of the prosecution as false as the dying declaration in such circumstances cannot be relied upon.