JUMNI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 12-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 673 
JUMNI AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2005 etc.) 
MARCH 12, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE: 
s.302 - Death of a married woman by burns - Dying 
declaration - Relatives of husband of deceased convicted and 
sentenced - Plea of alibi of two of the appellants not accepted 
A 
B 
c 
by courts below - Held: Testimony of alibi witnesses of two of 
the four appellants deserves acceptance - Further, the 
0 
evidence of defence witness that the door of the room of the 
deceased was locked from inside and when he broke open 
it, he saw the deceased on fire, cannot be glossed over - Thus, 
it is not possible to discount the theory of suicide - Besides, 
with everybody being roped in for every event, it is not 
E 
possible in this case to segregate or sever the actions of one 
from another - The two appellant setting up the plea of alibi 
are not found guilty of murder of deceased and are acquitted 
- The remaining two appellants are given benefit of doubt -
Evidence - Plea of alibi - Severability of dying declaration. 
EVIDENCE: 
F 
Plea of alibi - Held: Alibi witnesses have made out a 
strong case of demonstrating the improbability of the two 
appellants being involved in the incident of beating up the 
G 
deceased and stopping her from going to police station the 
previous day and setting her on fire in the, morning of the day 
of occurrence - Courts below proceeded on the basis that 
these two accused are required to prove their innocence -- It 
673 
H 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused - !Jefence 
evidence has to be tested like any other testimony, always 
keeping in mind that a person is presumed innocent until he 
or she is found guilty. 
B 
Dying declaration - Evidentiary value of - Explained. 
Dying declaration - Severability of - Held: Role of two sets 
of accused can be segregated, if dying declaration is 
severable - In the instant case, role of accused persons cannot 
be segregated as it mentions all accused persons to have 
C been involved in all events - Deceased has referred to all of 
them as being involved in every incident - Alibi witnesses have 
made out a strong improbability for two of the appellants to 
have participated in the incidents - Further, if somewhat 
different roles were assigned to at least some of the accused 
D persons, segregation or severance could have been possible-
But with everybody being roped in for every event, it is not 
possible to segregate or sever the actions of one from another. 
The four appellants and two other relatives of the 
E husband of the deceased, were prosecuted on the basis 
of the dying declaration of the deceased alleging that her 
father-in-law, mother-in-law, 'jeth' (brother-in-law) and his 
wife, and both 'devars' (brothers-in-law) had been 
harassing her and they planned to eliminate her; that on 
F 4.4.1996 during noon time all six accused gave her severe 
beatings; that when about 3.00 pm she was about to go 
to the police station, all of them prevented her; that on the 
day of incident, i.e. 5.4.1996 at about 7.30 A.M. all the six 
accused tied her and poured kerosene on her and set her 
on fire. The victim died in the hospital with 100% burns. 
G During the trial, the brother in law of the deceased and 
his wife took a plea of alibi. However, the trial court 
convicted all the six accused u/s 302 IPC and sentenced 
them to imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed the 
conviction and the sentence. 
H 
JUMNI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA 
675 
During the pendency of the appeals, the father-in-law A 
and one broth'er-in-law of the deceased died. 
Allowing the appeals, the court 
HELD: 
B 
Plea of alibi: 
1.1 Insofar as the appellants in Crl. A. No. 306 of 2005, 
who made a plea of alibi, are concerned, both the trial 
judge a.nd the High Court proceeded on the basis that 
these tWo accused persons are required to prove their C 
innocence. In fact it is f0r-the prosecution to prove their 
guilt and that seem~ to have been lost in the consideration 
of the case.It is no doubt true that when an alibi is set up, 
the burden is on the accused to lend credence to the 
defence put up by him or her. However the approach of D 
the court should not be such as to pick holes in the case 
of the accused person. The defence evidence has t9 be 
tested like any other testimony, always keeping in mind 
that a person i

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