LexPREM KUMAR GULATI versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 717 PREM KUMAR GULATI v. STATE OF HARYANAANDANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2009) SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 [M. Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s.302/498A rlw s.34 - Death of married woman due to burn injuries caused by pouring of kerosene oil and being lit on fire - Dying declaration - C Conviction of husband, brother-in-law and wife of brother-in- /aw- Challenge to - Held: Conviction of husband upheld as ·prosecution established the case that deceased was subjected to death at the instance and instigation of the husband - However, no corroborative evidence to come to D the conclusion that brother-in-law and his wife participated along with the husband for commission of the offence - They were living separately- Wife of brother-in-law already expired - Benefit of doubt given to brother-in-law; his conviction cannot be sustained. E Evidence Act, 1872 - s.32 - Dying declaration - Evidentiary value and reliability of - Held: Merely because dying declaration was not in question-answer form, the sanctity attached to a dying declaration cannot be brushed F aside and its reliability cannot be doubted. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:1. It is well settled that a truthful and reliable dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction even though it is not corroborated. However, the G reliability of declaration should be subjected to close scrutiny and the courts must be satisfied that the declaration is truthful. In the instant case, merely· because dying declaration was not in question-answer H 717 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A · form, the sanctity attached to a dying declaration as it comes from the mouth of a dying person cannot be brushed aside and its reliability cannot be doubted. [Paras 13 and 16][725-F-G; 732-8] B c D Godhu &Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1975) 3 SCC 241: 1975 (1) SCR 906; K. Ramachandra Reddy V. Public Prosecutor (1976) 3 sec 618: 1976 Suppl. SCR 542; Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) 2 SCC 808 : 1974 (1) SCR 722- referred to. P Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 3 SCC 161: 2006 (2) SCR 486; Mohan Lal & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2007) 9 SCC 151: 2007 (2) SCR 1030; State of Karnataka v. Shariff (2003) 2 sec 473: 2003 (1) SCR 572 - cited. 2.1. In the case at hand, in the dying declaration, the deceased declared that 'M', her husband alongwith 'P', her brother-in-law and '8', the wife of 'P' have poured kerosene oil upon her. Except that, nothing has been E said in the dying declaration as against the 'P' or his wife- '8' as to which accused poured kerosene oil upon her and the accused lighted the fire. PW-2, the police officer deposed that during the investigation, 'P' and '8' were found innocent as they were living separately. There are F no corroborative evidence to come to the conclusion that ·these two participated along with the main accused 'M' for the commission of the offence. '8' has already expired. Neither in the dying declaration nor in the statement of witnesses it has come in light as to what G act was done by 'P'. The benefit of doubt should be given to 'P' and his conviction cannot be sustained. [Paras 19, 20][732-G-H; 733-8-F] H 2.2. However, sufficient evidence has come on record and the prosecution has established the case that PREM KUMAR GULATI v. STATE OF HARYANA 719 it was 'M' at whose instance and instigation she was A subjected to death by pouring kerosene oil and lit on fire. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court as also by the Appellate Court as against main accused 'M' (husband of the deceased) cannot be interfered with. [Para 21][733-F-G] B Case Law Reference: 2006 (2) SCR 486 cited Para 8 2007 (2) SCR 1030 cited Para 8 2003 (1) SCR 572 cited Para 11 1975 (1) SCR 906 referred to Para 13 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 542 referred to Para 14 1974 (1) SCR 722 · referred to Para 15 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2009. c D From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 342-DB of 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. E WITH Crl. A. No. 1423 of 2009. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Jasbir Singh Malik (For F S. K. Sabharwal), Adv., for the Appellant. Roopansh Purohit, AAG, Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Naresh· Bakshi and Daya Krishan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.