REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.62 OF 2006

Amit Kumar & Anr.                               … Appellants

VERSUS

State of Punjab                                   …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This  appeal  has  been filed  by  the  two  appellants  

challenging the judgment rendered by the High Court of  

Punjab and Haryana in Criminal  Appeal  No.226-DB of  

2002 dated 18.5.2004.  By the  aforesaid judgment,  the  

High Court has confirmed the judgment of the Sessions  

Judge, Faridkot dated 25.1.2002 in Sessions Case No. 48  

of  16.12.1997 and Sessions  Trial  No.  390  of  7.4.1998  

whereby both the appellants have been convicted under  

Section 302 IPC for the murder of Anita Rani, hereinafter  

1

referred to  as  “the  deceased”.   However,  Neelam Rani,  

sister-in-law of  the deceased has been given benefit  of  

doubt and acquitted of the charges framed against her.

2. It appears that Anita Rani, deceased was married to  

Amit Kumar, appellant herein, about 4 ½ years prior to  

the date when she was set on fire, which led to her death.  

Both the Courts have noticed the continuous history of  

torture and harassment of the deceased by the appellants  

and their deceased mother Kailash Rani as they were not  

satisfied with the dowry given to the deceased at the time  

of  marriage.  Both  the  Courts  have  also  noticed  that  

continuous  efforts  had  been  made  to  bring  about  

reconciliation  between  the  deceased  and  the  in-laws.  

Efforts had been made by the panchayat also to make the  

in-laws of the deceased accept the fact that her parents  

had given as much dowry as they could afford. However,  

it appears that the family of the in-laws was not satisfied  

and, therefore, decided to do away with the young bride,  

2

merely  22  years  of  age.  She  was  set  ablaze  in  broad  

daylight on the morning of 26.6.1997, in the courtyard of  

the  house  belonging  to  her  in-laws.  The  horror  of  the  

story lies in the fact, that the victim lost her life, because  

her  parents  failed  to  provide  a  refrigerator  and  a  

television.        

3. With  the  aforesaid  tragic  prelude,  we  can  now  

proceed to decipher the events which culminated in the  

burning of Anita Rani on the morning of 26.6.1997.  

4. According to Kimti Lal, PW1 and Gulshan Kumar,  

PW5, it was Asha Rani PW2, neighbour of the deceased,  

who told them that Anita Rani had been set ablaze with  

kerosene oil.  Thereafter, they went to the house of the  

accused  where  they  saw  Anita  Rani  lying  in  the  

courtyard, having been severely burnt. However, the fire  

had  been  extinguished  by  the  time  they  reached.  On  

enquiry  made  by  Kimti  Lal,  PW1,  Anita  Rani  stated  

3

“Kailash Rani,  Amit  Kumar,  Brij  Bhushan and Neelam  

Rani had put kerosene oil on her and set her on fire and  

she should be saved.” At that time, all the accused were  

present in the courtyard. Kimti Lal and Gulshan Kumar  

took Anita Rani to Dayanand Medical College/Hospital,  

Ludhiana and got her admitted there. ASI Rajpal Singh  

(PW 17) received information about the incident at about  

12.15 p.m. He promptly reached the hospital (DMC), and  

made preliminary enquiries.  Thereafter,  he went to the  

Duty  Magistrate  and  moved  a  request  application  

(Ex.P26) at 4.30 p.m. for recording the statement of Anita  

Rani.  (Endorsement  Ex.P27  was  made  by  Judicial  

Magistrate i.e. on the application). Within a short period,  

ASI Rajpal Singh alongwith Harjinder Pal Singh, PW13,  

the  then  Judicial  Magistrate,  Ist  Class,  Ludhiana,  

reached the hospital.  Opinion of the doctor regarding the  

fitness of  the  patient  was given at  5.05 p.m. (Ex.P28).  

After  she  was  declared  fit  (endorsement  Ex.P11),  her  

statement (Ex.P29) was recorded at 5.25 p.m.  Thereafter,  

4

ASI Rajpal Singh, PW17 recorded another statement of  

Anita  Rani  (Ex.P8)  from 5.40  p.m.  to  6.30  p.m.   This  

statement was also recorded after obtaining the opinion  

of  the  doctor  (Ex.P13).   On the  basis  of  the  aforesaid  

statement,  a  ruqa was sent  for  the  registration  of  the  

case at the Police Station, Moga resulting in the recording  

of a formal FIR (Ex.P7).  Initially, the FIR was recorded  

under  Section  307/498-A/34  IPC  against  all  the  four  

accused,  namely,  Amit  Kumar,  Brij  Bhushan,  Kailash  

Rani and Neelam Rani.  However, Anita Rani died on 1st  

July,  1997.   Therefore,  the  case  was  registered  under  

Section  302  read  with  34  IPC  against  all  the  four  

accused.   However,  Kailash  Rani  passed  away  before  

committal  proceedings.   Consequently,  the  proceedings  

against her was abated.   

5. The aforesaid three accused were duly put on trial  

for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.  At  

the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses.  Apart  

5

from giving their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C,  

the accused also examined 9 witnesses in defence.  Upon  

meticulous examination of the entire evidence, the trial  

court  convicted  Amit  Kumar  and  Brij  Bhushan  under  

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of  

Anita Rani.  However, Neelam Rani was given benefit of  

doubt and acquitted.   

6. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the two  

appellants by way of Criminal Appeal No. 226-DB of 2002  

before the High Court.  Upon a complete reappraisal of  

the evidence, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed  

by the two appellants.   

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at  

length.  

8. Challenging  the  findings  and  observations  of  the  

Courts  below,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  

submitted that this is a case of a tainted investigation.  

The evidence of prosecution witnesses can not establish  

6

the guilt of the appellants as their evidence is only with  

regard to the maltreatment being given to the deceased.  

None of them being eye-witnesses can possibly state as to  

whether she committed suicide or not.  Asha Rani only  

stated that Anita Rani had told her that she had been  

burnt  by  them.  She  did  not  name  any  person  as  an  

accused. Although she says that she saw Kailash Rani  

and Neelam Rani were present, she did not see any other  

accused  in  the  house.  Even  otherwise  her  evidence  is  

worthless as she was declared hostile, when she denied  

having made any previous statement, in which she had  

named the  accused,  as  having  set  Anita  Rani  on  fire.  

Learned  counsel  further  pointed  out  that  evidence  of  

Gulshan Kumar (DW8) who also sustained burn injuries  

has been wrongly ignored. He had given a true account of  

the events. He was the only eye witness. With regard to  

the investigation, it is submitted that Rajpal Singh, ASI  

was hand-in-glove with the parents of the deceased.  He  

pointed out a number of  procedural  irregularities.   He  

7

actually doubted the manner in which Rajpal Singh, ASI  

came to know about the incident.  The sum total of the  

submissions of the learned counsel seems to be that the  

investigation  was  unsatisfactory,  as  well  being  partial.  

Learned  counsel  also  submitted  that  both  the  Courts  

below have committed a serious error in relying on the  

dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. He  

has submitted that Anita Rani was so badly burnt, she  

was in no fit state to make such a lengthy statement. It  

has been fabricated at the instance of ASI Rajpal Singh.  

Both the Courts, according to the learned counsel, have  

erred  in  not  giving  proper  weightage  to  the  statement  

made to the doctor which was recorded in the bedhead  

ticket of the patient.  The doctor had clearly recorded the  

statement of Anita Rani that she had set herself ablaze.  

It was only subsequently at the instance of Rajpal Singh,  

ASI that the accused i.e. appellants had been named by  

Anita Rani.  Learned counsel laid considerable emphasis  

on the fact that conduct of the appellants in removing the  

8

injured immediately to the hospital clearly shows that the  

accused made all efforts to save Anita Rani, after she had  

set herself on fire.   

9. We  have  given  our  anxious  thought  to  the  

submissions  of  the  learned  counsel.  We  are,  however,  

unable to accept any of the submissions of the counsel of  

the appellants.  

10. The  trial  court  as  also  the  High  Court  has  

meticulously  examined  and  re-examined  the  entire  

evidence to conclude that the two appellants are guilty of  

murdering Anita Rani 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 seems to  

leave no manner of doubt that the trial court as well as  

the  High  Court  has  correctly  concluded  that  the  two  

appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.   

9

11. From the evidence on record, it would appear that  

the present two appellants and the two accused, namely,  

Kailash  Rani  and  Neelam  Rani  were  arrested  on  29th  

June, 1997. Kimti Lal (PW1), who is the real brother of  

the  deceased,  has  narrated  the  entire  history  of  

harassment of the deceased prior to her being set on fire  

by  the  accused  persons.  Gulshan  Kumar  (PW5)  is  a  

cousin of Anita Rani, deceased.  He has corroborated the  

testimony  of  Kimti  Lal,  PW1  in  all  details.   He  has  

deposed  about  the  demands  made  by  the  accused  for  

dowry in the shape of television and refrigerator.  He also  

talked about the continuous maltreatment given by the  

accused persons  to  Anita  Rani.   Asha Rani,  PW2 had  

initially  made  a  statement  before  the  police  giving  a  

graphic account of how Anita Rani was set on fire by the  

accused persons after pouring kerosene oil on her.  She,  

however, did not reiterate the entire sequence in Court,  

which in all probability, led to her being declared hostile.  

Even then, in Court, she unequivocally stated that due to  

10

the disputes over dowry, there always used to be quarrels  

between the accused and the deceased.  The in-laws were  

always  asking  for  more  dowry  and used to  taunt  her.  

However,  so  far  as  the  tragic  incident  of  26.6.1997 is  

concerned,  she only stated that when she reached the  

house  of  Anita  Rani,  the  fire  had  already  been  

extinguished and Anita Rani did not disclose to her as to  

who had set her ablaze.  In the earlier statement, she had  

specifically  named  the  present  appellants  actively  

participating  in  setting  Anita  Rani  on  fire  by  pouring  

kerosene  oil  on  her.   Another  witness  Satnam Singh,  

PW3,  is  a  Carpenter,  who  had  been  working  in  the  

neighbourhood of the accused. He also stated that on the  

day of the occurrence he had seen a fire burning in the  

house of  the accused. When he pushed the door open  

and entered the house, he had seen one person trying to  

extinguish  the  fire.  Thereafter,  he  also  helped  in  

extinguishing the fire.  Afterwards,  he went back to his  

place of work. PW4 Dr. U.S. Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil  

11

Hospital,  Ludhiana conducted the autopsy on the dead  

body of Anita Rani on 1.7.1997 at 4.40 p.m. He observed  

as follows:      

“The dead body was 5 feet 4 inches long. It   

was  naked,  well  built  and  well  nourished,  Eyes  

and  mouth  were  partially  open.  Post  mortem  

staining  was  present  on  the  posterior  surface  of   

viscera  and  was  patchy.  The  rigor  mortis  was   

present in the upper limbs only. The vene section   

wound was on the left ankle and pad ink blue in   

colour was present on the right big toe.  He found  

the following injuries on the dead body :

(1)  Superficial  to  deep  infected  burns  all  over  the   

body except the grow in area, public area, vulva and  

both feet, singeing of hairs of body, Scalp and face  

were  present.   Puss  and  slough  formation  was   

present at multiple areas with crust formation of the   

superficial wounds of burns.”      

He also observed that pleura larynx, tracheae and  

both lungs were congested. The stomach contained 250cc  

of  fluids.  The  liver,  spleen  and  kidneys  were  also  

congested. Urinary bladder and uterus were healthy and  

empty. He has opined that the cause of death was due to  

12

septicaemia as a result of infected extensive burns, which  

were  sufficient  to  cause  death  in  ordinary  course  of  

nature and the burns were ante mortem in nature. He  

further opined that the probable time between burns and  

death was about six days and between death and post  

mortem was about six hours.   He  has  further  deposed  

that  the  post  mortem  was  conducted  after  observing  

normal formalities and upon an application made by the  

police (Ex.P6). The fitness of the deceased to make the  

statement  was  duly  proved  by  PW7 Dr.  Sanjiv  Kumar  

Singla.  At  this  stage,  we  must  also  notice  that  the  

bedhead  ticket  (Ex.P13)  pertaining  to  Anita  Rani  

prepared at DMC has been proved by Dr. Panjak Arora,  

PW8.  In his cross-examination, he has stated that Amit  

Kumar had brought Anita Rani to the hospital and she  

was alleged to have sustained burn injuries after she set  

herself on fire because of some dispute with the family  

members on 26.6.1997 at 10 a.m. Ashish Gupta, PW9,  

Registrar, DMC, Ludhiana has deposed that Anita Rani  

13

was admitted in the hospital on 26.6.1997 at 11.20 a.m.  

He had sent the necessary intimation to the police station  

regarding Anita Rani being brought to the hospital having  

approximately  90% burns of second and third degrees.  

Although the patient had been burnt at about 10 a.m. on  

26.6.1997, she was conscious and oriented. He opined  

that the nature of the injuries was dangerous.  He has  

also stated that Anita Rani was shifted to burn Intensive  

Care  Unit  on  26.6.1997  at  about  2.00  p.m.   He  had  

further  stated,  during  cross-examination,  that  after  a  

patient suffers 90% burn injuries, he goes into primary  

shock  initially  for  2  to  4  hours.   He  however  further  

testified  that  according  to  the  record,  she  remained  

conscious throughout the period.   Raj Kumar PW10 is  

the  photographer,  who  has  proved  the  photographs  

(Ex.P21 to P23).  Ex.P18 to P20 are the negatives of the  

photographs.  PW11, Gursewak Singh is the Draftsman,  

who  prepared  the  scaled  site  plan  of  the  place  of  

occurrence.  Subhash Chander, PW12 is another witness  

14

produced by the  prosecution to  the  effect  that  he  had  

intervened in the dispute of Anita Rani and her in-laws  

as  she  was  being  harassed  on  account  of  demand  of  

dowry.  PW14 Mangat Ram is again a witness with regard  

to the demand of dowry.  He has narrated that there was  

a demand of TV and Refrigerator by the appellants.  He  

had intervened in the dispute, it was as a result of his  

undertaking  that  Anita  Rani  was  sent  back  to  the  

matrimonial home.   

12. ASI HC Hardial Singh, PW15 delivered the special  

report to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 26.6.1997 at 10.00 p.m.  

HC Gurmail Singh, PW16 produced the Roznamcha for  

the period from 20.6.1997 to 11.7.1997 of Police Station,  

Moga  City  –  I.  ASI  Rajpal  Singh  is  the  investigating  

officer.  We may notice at this stage that the statement  

(Ex.P29)  recorded  by  the  Judicial  Magistrate  in  the  

vernacular language was treated as a dying declaration  

15

upon the death of Anita Rani.  The translated version of  

the dying declaration is:-

“There used to be a quarrel on trivial matters.   

My younger Darani (my husband’s brother’s wife)   

had gone to her parents after quarrelling.  I have  

been  residing  separate  from  my  in-laws  in  the   

same  house.   My  husband’s  younger  brother   

washed  his  banyan (under  garment)  himself.   It   

happened a day before yesterday that my husband  

had slapped me and given fist blows and he had  

refused to take meals from me.  I had said that I   

should work  as well  and bear the  beatings.   My  

husband was also saying that I was a clung (i.e.   

clunk) to him.  A day before yesterday when I had   

asked my husband to take meals then he had told   

that “Tere Maan bap da siapa kar ke awanga” (he  

will  go  and  protest  before  her  parents.)   My  

husband had also  told  me that  if  I  died,  he will   

have  no  worry.   My  husband’s  younger  brother   

Babbu, mother-in-law Kailash Rani,  my husband,   

my husband’s sister were also standing there (uni  

kol khari  see).  Then my husband’s elder brother  

came there and put off the fire.  Kerosene oil was   

sprinkled  upon  me  by  my  mother-in-law,  my  

husband’s younger brother and my husband after   

taking me near the kacha kotha in the courtyard of   

16

our house.  When my husband, my mother-in-law  

and my husband’s younger brother set me on fire,  

then  my  sister-in-law  was  standing  there.   My  

husband’s elder brother and his wife, both saved  

me.  When a mattress (Gadha) was demanded for  

placing the same upon me, then my mother-in-law  

told that  she had no mattress.   My in-laws  were   

saying that neither the refrigerator nor a television   

has been given in dowry and only a scooter  has  

been given. Now I have brought utensils from my  

parental  house, then they said that  why she had  

brought utensils by demanding the same and why  

these  utensils  were  not  given  at  the  time  of   

Marriage?   I  do  not  want  to  say  anything  more.   

R.O.A.C.  Sd/-  JMIC(Duty)  26.6.1997  statement   

recorded between 5:10 p.m. to 5:25 p.m.)”.

13. It  has  also  come  in  the  statement  of  Judicial  

Magistrate Harinder Pal Singh (PW 13) that since all the  

finger tips of the hands of Anita Rani were burnt, she had  

put  the  impression  of  her  right  toe  on  the  dying  

declaration.   A  note  (Ex.P30/1)  was  recorded  by  the  

Magistrate in this regard.  Another note (Ex.P30/3) was  

also recorded, which indicated that Anita Rani had made  

17

her  statement  voluntarily  and which contains  the true  

account  of  the  statement  made  by  her.  In  court  the  

Judicial  Magistrate  reiterated  that  upon  reaching  the  

hospital, he had sought the information about the fitness  

of  Anita  Rani  from Dr.  Sanjiv  Kumar Singla,  who was  

present  in  the  burn  Intensive  Care  Unit  of  DMC,  

Ludhiana.   The  witness  has  duly  proved  the  opinion  

(Ex.P11)  made by the doctor declaring that Anita  Rani  

was fit to make a statement.  It is categorically stated by  

the Judicial Magistrate that Anita Rani understood the  

questions and the answers that were being recorded.  He  

has also stated that the statement was made by Anita  

Rani out of her free will.  He has proved the statement  

(Ex.P29) and the endorsement (Ex.P30) by which he had  

certified that Anita Rani had put impression of her right  

toe on the dying declaration as impression of the finger  

tips  of  her  hands  could  not  be  taken  because all  the  

finger tips were burnt.  

18

14. Upon completion of  the  prosecution  evidence,  the  

trial  court examined the accused under Section 313 of  

the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  and  the  incriminating  

circumstances  appearing  against  the  accused  in  the  

prosecution evidence were put to them.  All the accused  

pleaded that they were innocent and that the witnesses  

being relations of the deceased are only interested in the  

success of the case.  The appellants Amit Kumar and Brij  

Bhushan run cloth shop at Village Daroli Bhai.   It was  

further stated by them that on the date of the occurrence  

Poonam  w/o  Brij  Bhushan  had  gone  to  her  parental  

house.  Therefore, when Amit Kumar asked his wife Anita  

Rani to prepare the food for them, she had flatly refused  

to do so.  Consequently, both of them did not have their  

meal and left for the shop at 8.30 a.m.  It was only when  

Brij  Bhushan  and  Amit  Kumar  were  standing  at  the  

tempo stand, Moga for going to Village Daroli Bhai that  

they received a message that Anita Rani has set herself  

ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil on her.  On the return  

19

to the house, they saw that Anita Rani had been burnt  

and  their  brother  Gulshan  Kumar  had  also  got  burn  

injuries while extinguishing the fire.  Then Amit Kumar  

called her parents and arranged a jeep and took Anita  

Rani to DMC, Ludhiana in order to save her life.  It was  

also stated that Gulshan Kumar, Brother-in-law of Amit  

Kumar,  Purshottam  Lal  and  Kimati  Lal  had  also  

accompanied Anita Rani and Gulshan Kumar to DMC.  

They denied making any demands for dowry from Anita  

Rani or from her parents.  It was also the case of Amit  

Kumar that Anita Rani had told the doctor, who prepared  

the case history that she had set herself on fire.  This  

was all changed at about 1.30 p.m. when his father-in-

law Sant Lal reached there alongwith ASI Rajpal Singh,  

who  is  close  to  them.   It  is  also  alleged  that  he  was  

illegally detained by Rajpal Singh, ASI.  The appellants  

also examined DW1 to DW9 in their defence.  DW4 Dr.  

Ashok Kumar has proved the burn injuries suffered by  

Gulshan Kumar at the time of extinguishing the fire of  

20

Anita Rani on 26.6.1997.  He has also proved bed head  

ticket  of  Gulshan  Kumar  (Ex.D17)  and  Anita  Rani  

(Ex.D18).  DW8, Gulshan Kumar, who is the brother of  

the accused stated that he with the help of Satnam Singh  

and his wife put off the fire.  He had further stated that  

Anita Rani had disclosed to his wife that she had herself  

set ablaze.  DW9, Harish Kumar is a witness to prove the  

plea of Alibi set up by the accused Neelam Rani.  Since  

she has been acquitted, the High Court treated this as  

irrelevant.  We need say no more on this issue.

15. The  High  Court  while  examining  the  various  

submissions made on behalf of the appellants has come  

to the conclusion that the dying declaration is a clinching  

piece  of  evidence  as  it  was  recorded  by  the  Judicial  

Magistrate  within  a  few  hours  of  the  occurrence.   We  

have also seen the contents of the dying declaration. This  

statement  which  was  recorded  in  the  vernacular  has  

been  translated  into  English  with  exactitude.  A  bare  

21

perusal of the same would show that whole statement is  

spontaneous  and  sets  out  the  correct  version  of  the  

events leading to her  being set  on fire.   She does  not  

unfairly implicate anybody who had not participated in  

the crime.  She clearly stated that her younger Darani i.e.  

husband’s brother’s  wife had gone to her parents after  

quarrelling.   She  also  states  that  there  was  a  quarrel  

between her and her husband.  He had slapped her and  

refused to take any food from her.  She had retorted that  

she does all the work in the house and still she has to  

bear the beatings with shoes.  He had earlier informed  

her that he was going to protest to her parents about her  

misbehavior.  He had categorically told that if she dies,  

he would have no worries.  She stated that her husband’s  

younger  brother,  mother-in-law,  her  husband  and  her  

husband’s sister were also standing there.  But she then  

correctly states that her husband’s elder brother tried to  

save her by extinguishing the fire.  In the very next line,  

she again states that kerosene oil was sprinkled upon her  

22

by  her  mother-in-law,  her  husband’s  younger  brother  

and her husband.  This was done by taking her near the  

“kacha kotha”.  She stated that her mother-in-law, her  

husband and younger brother set her on fire.  But her  

husband’s elder brother and his wife, both tried to save  

her.  In our opinion, both the Courts below have correctly  

relied on the dying declaration.  We are unable to accept  

the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that  

the aforesaid dying declaration ought to be disbelieved on  

the basis that it may be a result of tutoring by her family  

members.   In  fact,  this  very  objection  has  been  

considered by the High Court.  It has been specifically  

noticed  in  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  that  the  

statement  had  been  recorded  after  an  application  

(Ex.P26)  had  been  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 from his statement which would show that the  

23

dying declaration was a tainted one.  The Magistrate has  

categorically stated in his evidence that Anita Rani was  

lying in the cabin at the time when the statement was  

recorded.  The cabin was not accessible to the relatives of  

the  injured  and  she  could  be  seen  from  outside  only  

through the glass of the cabin.  It must be remembered  

that  at  the  time  Anita  Rani  had  been  taken  to  the  

Intensive Burn Injury Unit, she had received 90% burn  

injuries of second and third degrees.  Therefore, she was  

isolated  in  the  burn  unit  to  avoid  any  chances  of  

infection.  She was so badly injured that her statement  

had to be identified by the right toe print of her foot.

16. In view of the above, we are unable to disbelieve the  

statement (Ex.P29)  which has ultimately been declared  

as  a  dying  declaration.   This  Court  while  stating  the  

principles  of  testing  the  authenticity  of  a  dying  

declaration has observed in the case of  Paniben (Smt.)  

Vs. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474 as follows:-

24

“18. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great   weight,  it  is  worthwhile  to  note that  the  accused  

has no power of cross-examination. Such a power   

is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of   

oath  could  be.  This  is  the  reason  the  Court  also   

insists that the dying declaration should be of such  

a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in   

its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that   

the statement of deceased was not as a result of   

either  tutoring,  prompting  or  a  product  of   

imagination.  The  Court  must  be  further  satisfied  

that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a  

clear  opportunity  to  observe  and  identify  the  

assailants.  Once  the  Court  is  satisfied  that  the   

declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it   

can  base  its  conviction  without  any  further  

corroboration.  It  cannot  be  laid  down  as  an  

absolute  rule  of  law  that  the  dying  declaration   

cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is   

corroborated.  The  rule  requiring  corroboration  is   

merely  a  rule  of  prudence.  This  Court  has  laid   

down in several judgments the principles governing  

dying declaration,  which could be summed up as  

under:

(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that   

dying  declaration  cannot  be  acted  upon  without   

25

corroboration. (Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. (1976) 3  

SCC 104).

(ii)  If  the  Court  is  satisfied  that  the  dying  

declaration  is  true  and  voluntary  it  can  base   

conviction on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P.  

v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC 552; Ramawati   

Devi v. State of Bihar (1983) 1 SCC 211).

(iii)  This  Court  has  to  scrutinise  the  dying  

declaration  carefully  and  must  ensure  that  the  

declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting   

or  imagination.  The  deceased  had opportunity  to   

observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit   

state  to  make  the  declaration.  (K.  Ramachandra  

Reddy v. Public Prosecutor (1976) 3 SCC 618).

(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should  

not be acted upon without corroborative  evidence.   

(Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. (1974) 4 SCC 264).

(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could  

never  make  any  dying  declaration  the  evidence  

with  regard to it is to  be rejected. (Kake Singh v.  

State of M.P. (1981) Supp SCC 25)

(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity   

cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram Manorath  

v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 654)

(vii)  Merely because a dying declaration  does not  

contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to   

26

be rejected. (State of Maharashtra v.  Krishnamurti   

Laxmipati Naidu (1980) Supp SCC 455)

(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement,   

it  is  not  be  discarded.  On  the  contrary,  the   

shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.   

Surajdeo  Oza v.  State  of  Bihar  (1980)  Supp SCC  

769)

(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether   

deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the   

dying declaration  look up to  the  medical  opinion.   

But  where  the  eye  witness  has  said  that  the  

deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make  

this dying declaration,  the medical  opinion cannot  

prevail. (Nanahau Ram v. State of M.P. (1988) Supp  

SCC 152)

(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the  

version as given in the dying declaration, the said   

declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of U.P. v.  

Madan Mohan (1989) 3 SCC 390).”

27

Applying the aforesaid ratio of law we find that there  

is no occasion to disbelieve the dying declaration in the  

facts and circumstances of the present case.

17. We also see no reason to doubt the presence of the  

witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW5. Asha Rani had been told  

by  Anita  Rani  that  she  had  been  burnt.   Similarly,  

Satnam Singh,  PW3 came into the  compound after  he  

saw the  smoke from the  fire  in which Anita  Rani  was  

burning.  The  evidence  of  PW1,  Kimti  Lal  and  PW5,  

Gulshan Kumar 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 close relations of the deceased. Even Asha Rani,  

PW2  had  stated  that  Anita  Rani  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  

28

appeared in court, for reasons best known to her, but not  

difficult to discern.  But that is no reason to discard her  

entire evidence.  In our opinion, the course adopted by  

the Courts below can not be said to be erroneous.  In  

similar circumstances, this Court has in the case of Sat  

Paul  Vs.  Delhi  Administration  (1976)  1  SCC  727, has  

observed as follows:

“From  the  above  conspectus,  it  emerges  clear  

that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness  

is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave   

of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence   

cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed  

off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to   

consider in each case whether as a result of such  

cross-examination  and  contradiction,  the  witness  

stands  thoroughly  discredited  or  can  still  be  

believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the   

Judge finds that  in  the  process,  the  credit  of  the  

witness has not been completely shaken, he may,   

after  reading and considering the evidence of the   

witness,  as  a whole,  with  due caution  and care,   

accept,  in  the  light  of  the  other  evidence  on  the  

record, that part of his testimony which he finds to   

be creditworthy and act upon it.”

29

Without reference to any case law, the Courts below  

have correctly applied the aforesaid principle to the facts  

of the present case.  

18.  There remains no doubt that the appellants had  

indeed set  the  deceased on fire.   Much emphasis  was  

placed by the learned counsel  for the appellant on the  

history recorded on the bedhead ticket (Ex.P13).  In this  

history, it is stated that the patient had herself claimed to  

have set herself on fire by using kerosene oil on account  

of some fight within the family members at 10.00 a.m. on  

26.6.1997.  The High Court examined the bedhead ticket  

and observed that the whole record is made subsequently  

by  the  doctor  as  he  is  making  repeated  entries  with  

regard to the previous history at different stages.  This  

was not required at all.  In his enthusiasm to help the  

accused,  at  one  stage,  he  even  goes  to  the  extent  of  

showing  that  fire  was  extinguished  by  husband  and  

30

family members by using water and cloth.  This was not  

even the case pleaded by appellant Amit Kumar and Brij  

Bhushan, who had put forward a plea of alibi to show  

that they were not even present at the time when Anita  

Rani received the burn injuries.  Similarly the testimony  

of Gulshan Kumar (DW8) has been held to be unreliable  

as he was trying to save his kith and kin. He has made  

improvements  in  his  statement  (Ex.DE),  while  stating  

that  Anita  Rani  disclosed  to  his  wife  she  committed  

suicide and it was her mistake. In our opinion, the courts  

below have correctly held that this was an effort made by  

the witness to save his family. Clearly the appellants had  

resorted  to  telling  one  lie  after  another  to  escape  the  

conviction  for  the  murder  which  they  had  clearly  

committed.   

19. In  view  of  the  aforesaid,  we  find  no  reason  

whatsoever to interfere with the verdict recorded by the  

31

trial  court as well  as the High Court in convicting the  

appellants of murder.   

20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

…………………………….J.       [B.Sudershan Reddy]

..……………………… ……J.

  [Surinder Singh Nijjar]   

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 12, 2010.

32