Usha Rani vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

In her dying declaration recorded at 8.55 P.M. on 27th December, 1985 inside the Emergency Ward of Civil Hospital, Bhatinda, by S.I. Didar Singh PW6, deceased Kailash Rani stated that while she was lying down onher double bed, placed inside the chaubra of her residential room, in her matrimonial home, around 6.00 P.M. her husband''s married sister Usba Rani accused brought a `Parat'' full of kerosene oil, sprinkled it on her body and set fire thereto with the result that she got burns therewith, that her husband and his two brothers named Hari Chand and Ram Chand brought her to the hospital and her brother Satish also reached thereon return from Gidderbaha and that inside the hospital the doctor had given her first aid and dressed her wounds.

The reasons assigned for the sisterinlaw doing so is the unsatisfied demand for more dowry in the form of a scooter and cooler. The deceased also stated in her dying declaration that her fatherinlaw Kishan Chand, motherinlaw Sita Rani, sisterinlaw Usha Rani, husband of her sisterinlaw Bhagwan Das and her own husband Ashok Kumar were all along, for the nine months, after, her marriage taunting her for bringing less dowry and persuading her to bring a scooter and a cooler more that she apprised her brother Satish Kumar who came to see her at 9.00 A.M. on the day of occurrence about it who told her that he would get back to Gidharbaha the same day and consult her parents about it, that around 2.00 P.M. her parentsinlaw went to Karnal to the house of a relation living there, her husband went to the shop down stairs and her own brother Satish to Gidderbaba to consult per parents and that she herself came for rest in the `Chaubara'' because she was carrying a pregnancy of 8 months wherein accused Usha Rani, her sisterinlaw, suddenly came round 6.00 P.M. and burnt her as narrated above.

Emergency Medical Officer Dr. Hukam Chand Garg PW4 made on the dying declaration the following endorsement at 8.55 P.M. on 27th December, 1985 :

"She remained fit throughout the recording of the statement. The statement was recorded in my presence. Whatever she said was actually recorded by the police."

Kailash Rani died in the hospital at 1.55 P,M. on 28th December, 1985 the following day. The cause of death set out in the postmortem report was, "Death in my opinion, was due to shock as a result of extensive burns, which were antemortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature".

On being charged with the commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code accusedappellant Usha Rani pleaded not guilty and, claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 14th October, 1981, learned trial court convicted her of the commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay Rs. 1000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine accusedappellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Feeling aggrieved therefrom Usha Rani has filed Criminal Appeal No. 541DB of 1987 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Dara Singh, Senior Advocate, with Shri K. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the State, assisted by Shri T. S. Sangha, Advocate, for the complainant and have carefully perused the evidence on record.

The explanation offered by the accusedappellant Usha Rani for her alleged false `inculpation by her brother''s wife Kailash Rani now deceased. reads, I innocent. I was married at Bhatinda 9/10. years earlier to occurrence and was living with my husband at his house. My husband was addicted to drinking and did not save any money for the family living. He used to sell vegetables. I used to take money and other household goods from my parents and Ashok Kumar my brother. Kailash Rani was annoyed with me on that account and even her mother'' remarked to me to be a parasite upon Ashok Kumar. Kailash Rani wanted to settle with Ashok Kumar it Gidderbaha to which Ashok Kumar did no agree and she had committed suicide, being of peevish nature." The explanation does not fit in well with the surrounding circumstances. With 85% burns on her body, the deceased knew well that her end was near, hers 8 months old alleged pregnancy was also ending with her and there was no previous issue after marriage; which itself was hardly 9 months old. In case the deceased was still revengeful in spite of all this, she could have easily inculpated her husband, parentsinlaw as also the husband of the accused for her death besides the accused herself. Mere fact that she spared all of them and made the dying declaration against the appellant only convinces us about the truth of dying declaration. In respect of dying declaration like the present one which inspires confidence Supreme Court observed in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 Tara Chand Damu v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 130 and Gopal Singh and another v. The State of M.P. and another, AIR 1972 SC 1557 as follows :

"It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. It should be subject to close scrutiny but once the court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the cause of death then there is no need of further corroboration.

Where the deceased had died as a result of burns caused by, the fire set to her clothes by the accused who had sprinkled kerosene oil on her and this is supported by her dying declaration against the correctness of which no. cogent reasons had been given or suggested and a conviction based on such evidence is sustainable.

A court is entitled to convict on the sole basis of a dying declaration if it is such that in the circumstances of the case it can be regarded as truthful."

Dying declaration relied upon by the learned trial court for basing the conviction of accusedappellant having been found truthful, there is no ground to, interfere either with the conviction or the sentence awarded to the accusedappellant. Criminal Appeal filed by her thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.