Brief Facts
- The three accused were convicted under section 304B of IPC by the Trial Court. The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court acquitted the father-in-law of the deceased. Due to death of the mother-in–law of the deceased the High Court abated her appeal. But the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under section 304B.
- The conviction of the Appellant was primarily based on the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Executive Magistrate after 2-3 days of hospitalization of the deceased, who had suffered 91% burns on her body.
Issues
- Whether the dying declaration of deceased is trustworthy or not in this case?
- Was there any harassment on account of the non-fulfillment of the dowry demand?
Held
- The Supreme Court acquitted the Appellant as the dying declaration was not found to be trustworthy and it could not be proven that deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Whether the dying declaration is trustworthy or not in this case.
- It could thus be seen that there is a grave doubt as to whether the dying declaration recorded by Shri Sadhu Singh (PW-5), Executive Magistrate was a voluntary one or tutored at the instance of respondent No.5. It is further relevant to note that Dr. Jatinder Pal Singh (PW-8), in his deposition itself, states that Shri Sadhu Singh (PW-5), Executive Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 8 th November 1991 at 04.40 p.m. whereas the opinion with regard to her fitness was given by him at 06.00 p.m. on 8th November 1991. He has further admitted that he had not mentioned in the bed-head ticket that he had attested the statement of the deceased at 04.40 p.m. on 8th November 1991.
- It is thus doubtful as to whether Dr. Jatinder Pal Singh (PW-8) had really examined the deceased with regard to her fitness prior to her statement being recorded by Shri Sadhu Singh (PW-5), Executive Magistrate.
- The most glaring aspect that is required to be considered is that the High Court itself has disbelieved the dying declaration insofar as Jora Singh, father-in-law of the deceased is concerned. We fail to understand as to how the same dying declaration could have been made basis for conviction of the appellant when the same was disbelieved insofar as another accused is concerned.
Whether there is any harassment on account of the non-fulfillment of the dowry demand.
- Insofar as harassment with regard to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry is concerned, except the vague allegation, there is nothing in their evidence to support the prosecution case. Insofar as Major Singh (PW-6), Sarpanch of the village is concerned, he stated that he was informed by Randhir Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased that in-laws of the deceased were harassing her and therefore they should go to village Chatha. However, he also does not state that he was informed by Randhir Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased that the deceased was meted out to any harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Relevant Para No.
- 12,13, 15 & 17