AMIT KUMAR & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1088 · Decided: 12-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 1088 
AMIT KUMAR & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2006) 
AUGUST 12, 2010 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302134 - Murder- Conviction by 
C courts below based on dying declaration and ocular testimony 
of witnesses - On appeal, held: Conviction was justified - The 
dying declaration and ocular evidence is reliable - Evidence 
- Dying Declaration. 
0 
The two appellants-accused, alongwith other two 
accused persons, were prosecuted for commission of 
offences punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC. The prosecution 
case was that the appellant-accused (husband of the 
victim) alongwith his younger brother (another appellant-
accused) his mother (accused since deceased) and his 
E sister-in-law, set the victim on fire. The victim was taken 
to hospital. Her statement was recorded by the Judicial 
Magistrate, after taking opinion of the doctor regarding 
her fitness to make the statement. Subsequently, the 
victim succumbed to the burn injuries. The Mother-in-law 
F of the deceased died before the committal proceedings. 
The other three accused were put on trial. The trial court 
convicted the appellants-accused u/s. 302/34 IPC and 
acquitted the third accused giving her the benefit of 
doubt. High Court upheld the order of the trial court. The 
G instant appeal was filed by the appellants-accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The trial court as also the High Court 
H 
1088 
AMIT KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
1089 
meticulously examined and re-examined the entire 
A 
evidence to conclude that the two appellants are guilty 
of murdering the deceased by setting her on fire as she 
and her parents had failed to meet the wholly unlawful 
demands of dowry. The entire body of evidence leaves 
no doubt that the trial court as well as the High Court 
B 
correctly concluded that the two appellants are guilty 
beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason to interfere 
with the verdict recorded by the trial court as well as the 
High Court in convicting the appellants of murder. [Paras 
10 and 19] [1095-D-E; 1106-G] 
C 
2. Both the courts below correctly relied on the dying 
declaration. The same cannot be disbelieved on the basis 
that it may be a result of tutoring by the family members 
of the deceased. It was specifically noticed in the 
judgment of the High Court that the statement of the 
D 
deceased had been recorded after an application 
(Ex .. P26) was moved before the Magistrate. The Judicial . 
Magistrate also stated that all safeguards were observed 
by him before recording the statement. He was cross-
examined at length but nothing fruitful could be extracted 
E 
from his statement which would show that the dying 
declaration was a tainted one. The Magistrate has 
categorically stated in his evidence that the deceased 
was lying in the cabin at the time when the statement was 
recorded. The cabin was not accessible to the relatives 
F 
of the injured. Thus, there is no occasion to disbelieve 
the dying declaration in the facts and circumstances of 
the instant case. [Paras 15 and 16) [1102-B-F; 1104-H] 
Paniben (Smt.) vs. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474, 
G. 
relied on. 
3. There is also no reason to doubt the presence of 
the witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW5. PW2 had been told 
by the deceased that she had been burnt. Similarly, PW3 
came into the compound after he saw the smoke from the 
H 
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 9 S.C.R. 
A fire in which the deceased was burning. The evidence of 
PW1, and PWS is unflinching, coherent and consistent. 
Both the witnesses have withstood lengthy cross-
examination without any loss of credibility. Their evidence 
cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are 
B close relations of the deceased. Even PW2 had stated 
that the deceased had named the appellants as the· 
persons who set her on fire. She seems to have changed 
her stand, during the long interval between the earlier 
statement and the time when she appeared in the court, 
c for reasons best known to her, but not difficult to discern. 
D 
But that is no reason to discard her entire evidence. [Para 
17] [1105-A-D] 
Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration (1376) 1 SCC 727, 
relied on. 
4. There is no doubt that the appellants had indeed 
set the deceased on fire. In the history· recorded on the 
bed-head ticket (Ex. P13), it is stated that the patient had 
herself claimed to have set herself on fire by using 
E kerosene oil on acc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.