LexSHARDA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 441 SHARDA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2008) DECEMBER 15, 2009 [AFTAB ALAM AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Dying declaration: Three dying declarations - First and second dying declarations recorded by police in the presence A B of doctors in quick succession - Consistent statements made C by deceased that she received bum injuries accidentally and she held no one responsible for the incident - Third dying declaration in question-answer form recorded by magistrate after three days - Deceased stating that appellant-mother-in- /aw poured kerosene on her - There were overwritings in the D > 1 third dying declaration and some dates were scored out to put new dates - This create doubt with regard to its co"ectness and veracity - The first and second dying declarations were more reliable and credible - Third dying declaration neither inspired confidence nor wholly trustworthy to sustain conviction E of appellant - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. ~ Prosecution case was that .on 16.8.1999 deceased was set on fire by appellant who was her mother-in-law ,, , which resulted"in her death on 19.8.1999. Three dying declarations were recorded. The first was Ex.D-3 F recorded by PW-22, ASI in the presence of PW-31, doctor. The second dying declaration was Exh.P .3 recorded by PW-20, SI in the presence of doctor. In the first and second dying declaration, deceased stated that she received burn injuries accidentally. The third dying G declaration Exh.P.18 was recorded by magistrate, in > which she stated that kerosene was poured on her by appellant. 441 H 442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Trial court convicted the appellant under s.302 IPC on the basis of third dying declaration. High Court affirmed the same. Hence the present appeal . • Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1 .. PW-31 deposed that on 16.8.1999, he was posted as Surgeon in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. That day deceased was admitted in the hospital on account of burn injuries sustained by her. She had given her statement which was recorded in his presence, c marked as D-3. The same bore his signature and thumb impression of deceased. In the cross-examination of PW- 31, he categorically deposed that during the time her statement was recorded, she was mentally alert and was in a condition to get her statement recorded. He further D admitted that the said statement was not recorded under pressure from anyone and was given on her own free will . " and accord. He further clarified that in Exh. D-3, her first dying declaration, she had stated that while cooking food, on Primus stove, she pumped air which inflamed the E same, her clothes accordingly caught fire and she sustained burn injuries. She further stated that no one had set her on fire. Thus, his cross-examination fully established that deceased sustained burn injuries on her own while cooking food and did not fast~ liability on F anyone else much less on the appellant. PW-22 ' . categorically deposed the manner in which statement of deceased was recorded in Exh. D-3. He also deposed that at that time P.W.31 was also present who certified her to be in mentally fit and proper condition to get the same G recorded. From the evidence, it is crystal clear that the first dying declaration of deceased Ex.D-3 stood fully corroborated from the evidence of P.W-22 and P.W-31. [Paras 21 and 24] [450-B-H; 451-A] ~ ~ 1.2. Critical examination of the second dying H SHARDA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 443 declaration also shows that deceased had stated that A after cooking meals in the evening she was trying to extinguish the stove, but it got inflamed and her nylon saree caught fire. No one had put her to fire and no one should be blamed for it. Perusal of the same would show that these two statements were consistent and were B made by her, before being tutored by anyone. [Para 25] [451-B-C] 1.3. The third dying declaration was in question- answer form but perusal of the original record clearly C showed that it had many over-writings and some dates were scored out to put new dates. This itself created a doubt in mind with regard to correctness and veracity thereof. This was recorded on 19.8.1999 whereas two earlier statements Exh.D-3 and Exh. P-3 were recorded o· on 16.8.1999 in quick succession, soon after the incident. Exh. P-3 has been signed by P.W-19, father of the deceased. While pu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.