Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.1 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State that in the present case, the High Court ought to have relied upon and considered the dying declaration recorded by the competent magistrate. 5.2 It is submitted that as such cogent reasons were given by the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence that the statement before the IO which was considered to be first dying declaration on 20.12.2011 does not inspire any confidence. It is submitted that the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Trial Court was on appreciation of  available evidence on record more particularly the medical evidence.

6.1 It is submitted that as rightly observed by the High Court once the dying declaration was recorded by the police officer  on 20.12.2011, thereafter there was no reason to record another dying declaration on 22.12.2011. 6.2 It is submitted that in the first dying declaration recorded on 20.12.2011 she stated that out of fear of father­in­law, she committed suicide and the role assigned to respondent No.1 – father­in­law in her first dying declaration dated 20.12.2011 was only of chasing her for beating and not for burning, and in the second dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, there was a somersault and the victim – deceased implicated all other family members, the High Court has rightly refused to rely upon the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM on 22.12.2011. 6.3 It is submitted that on appreciation of evidence, the High Court has observed that the deceased was mentally weak. It is submitted that therefore in such a state of mind and because of the fear of her father­in­law that she will be beaten when she refused to give the money, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself; no case of murder has been made out and therefore, the High Court has rightly  acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

7. Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.

9. At the outset, it is required to be noted in the present case, there are two dying declarations, one recorded by the Police Officer on 20.12.2011 and another recorded by the Magistrate/SDM recorded on 22.12.2011. Even in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has as such specifically observed that none of the dying declarations inspire confidence. The High Court has not believed the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM on 22.12.2011 mainly on the ground that when the dying declaration was already recorded by the Police Officer on 20.12.2011, there was no reason to record the second dying declaration. However, it is required to be noted that what  was recorded by the Police Officer on 20.12.2011 was the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. Therefore, it was thought fit to record the dying declaration of the deceased by the Magistrate and that is why SDM was called to record the dying declaration of deceased on 22.12.2011. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that even the High Court has specifically observed that the first statement/dying declaration recorded by the Police on 20.12.2011 does not inspire any confidence. In that view of the matter, it is required to be considered whether the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate on 22.12.2011 is to be believed or not and whether on the basis of such dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM, the accused can be convicted or not.

10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, it is required to be considered whether the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate on 22.12.2011 is to be believed or not. Nothing is on record with regard to any allegation against the Magistrate/SDM to the effect that he was biased or interested in recording the dying declaration against the accused. He was summoned during the course of investigation and during the course of investigation he recorded the dying declaration and the statement of deceased. Even the High Court as such has not doubted the credibility of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM on the ground of malice. The reasoning given by the High Court to not rely upon the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM is not germane and cannot be accepted. We see no reason to doubt the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate on 22.12.2011 in which the deceased specifically stated that at 11:00 am due to the feud over demanding money, respondents – accused have burned her after pouring kerosene over her. Therefore, in the statement of dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate on 22.12.2011, the respondents – original accused are specifically named and it is specifically stated that they poured kerosene on her. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in so far as the statement recorded by the IO on 20.12.2011, it was recorded that the father­in­ law demanded money and started beating her with a stick, she ran away and she locked the door from inside and out of anger she poured the kerosene available in the room and set herself on blaze is concerned, considering the medical evidence on record the said statement/ dying declaration recorded by the Police Officer on 20.12.2011 does not inspire any confidence. Medical evidence does not support the version stated in the said dying declaration. It is to be noted that even according to the accused, the father­in­law took her to hospital. If statement of deceased in first dying declaration that she locked the door from inside and out of anger she poured kerosene is accepted, in that case it is not explained by the accused as to how she was taken to the hospital, as nothing is on record that the door was broken/opened by the father­in­law – accused and thereafter she was taken to hospital. Even considering the  medical evidence on record and the injuries sustained by the deceased, it is found that there were no injuries at all on the chest and injuries were found on the head and on the backside. As rightly observed by the Trial Court if she had committed suicide by pouring kerosene there would have been injuries on the chest as well as injuries would not have been on the head and on the backside. In our view, such injuries as found on the body of the deceased could have been possible only if somebody had poured kerosene on her from behind her. The aforesaid aspect has not at all been considered by the High Court.