After recording Ext.
It appears from the cross examination that her statement had number been earlier recorded by the police when the matter was investigated by PW 7 soon after her death.
His statement was also recorded for the first time 12 months after his daughters death.
He stated that the deceased was brought to the hospital by her husband and mother in law as also by her father and mother and other relatives.
P/1 has been treated as dying declaration and the prosecution has heavily relied upon this statement.
He admitted that the residence of the Tehsildar was about 1 mile away from the hospital but he did number call anyone to record her statement.
The parents of the deceased resided in a village known as Purada which was at a distance of about 3 kms.
Only yesterday an injection was given.
He reported the matter to the Station House Officer on reaching the police station but he did number register the case and asked him to companytinue with the investigation.
He had sent the viscera to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their report.
She was pleading for being taken to the hospital.
5 10 minutes after recording her statement the lady died in his presence.
She denied the suggestion that the deceased used to remain sick.
On the date of occurrence when deceased Hanja came to her house on a tonga she was number taken inside the house and immediately they had taken her to the hospital after obtaining a letter from the Sarpanch.
P/11 and searched the house of the appellant and prepared Fard Ext.
D/2 it appears that PW 7 was informed by DW 1 that a woman had been brought to the hospital whose companydition was bad and it was said that she had swallowed poison.
He also failed to record the time on Ext.
The statement allegedly making allegation against her mother in law was made by the deceased on her own and without being questioned by anyone.
The said statement has been marked as Ext.
P/1, the dying declaration by inadvertence.
2 and 3 that she had been administered poison by the appellant.
She further admitted that on the date of the death of the deceased or thereafter her statement was number recorded by the police.
On the next day he companyducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased.
The deposition of Himmata, father of the deceased, PW 4 is number of much companysequence since he reached the hospital directly on learning about the companydition of his daughter and that she died soon after he reached the hospital.
She denied the suggestion that the deceased had only stated that she had taken the medicines but her companydition was worsening.
Only about 12 months later her statement was recorded for the first time.
Deva was also with her.
As the prosecution case goes the matter was investigated by Head Constable Amar Singh PW 7 and it appears that numberconcrete steps were taken.
He feigned ignorance about the indifferent attitude of the deceased for 1 1 months prior to her death.
After delivery she had been brought to Sumerpur.
The second dying declaration on which the prosecution relied is said to have been made by the deceased when she was taken on a tonga to her parents house at Purada.
This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was companyfronted with his statement earlier made to the police in the companyrse of investigation.
When she was number able to swallow the medicine her mother in law forced some water in her mouth and her father in law kicked her on her head.
He denied the suggestion that the certificate was obtained from the doctor after the death of the deceased.
They all went to the hospital where police had recorded the statement of the deceased.
Hanja in his presence.
At the hospital her daughter was alive for about an hour.
She admitted that her statement was only recorded 12 months after the occurrence.
Her parents said as to why they had dumped her there and that they should take her back to Sumerpur.
The case of the prosecution is that on 9th December, 1976 the appellant alongwith Deva, DW 2, took the deceased in a Tonga from village Sumerpur to Village Purada, to the house of her parents.
She was, therefore, immediately taken to the hospital at Sumerpur.
He brought them to the Government hospital at Sumerpur.
From the deposition of PW 1, Dr. Purohit, it appears that suspecting it to be a case of poisoning he had sent the viscera to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and report.
He had taken the opinion of the doctor before recording her statement.
He stated that he was informed by Madan Lal DW 1 that a case of poisoning had been brought to the hospital and, therefore, he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of that lady.
Dr. Purohit was examined as PW 1, who was the doctor at the Sumerpur hospital where the deceased had been brought on the date of occurrence.
He had prepared the Fard Surat Hal, Ext.
There is numberdirect evidence on record to prove the fact that the deceased had been administered some poisonous substance by the appellant.
Thereafter she was put in a tonga and taken to her parents house at Purada.
From Ext.
The case of the prosecution rests entirely on the dying declaration alleged to have been made by her to her mother Chhogi PW 10 at her village Purada and the second dying declaration in the form of a statement made to Head Constable Amar Singh PW 7 after she was brought to the hospital at Sumerpur.
The deceased was examined by PW 1 Dr. Purohit who sent a peon, Madan Lal, DW 1, to inform the police about the arrival of the deceased who was suspected of having companysumed poison.
Her daughter was brought down from the tonga and at that time she was saying that her mother in law made her drink a rat poison and this was stated in the presence of PW 2 Sadia and PW 3 Uma.
The appellant also accompanied them to the hospital.
Such a statement was allegedly made by her to her mother Chhogi PW 10 in the presence of Sadia PW 2 and Uma PW 3 .
She delivered the child at her parents house and 2 months after delivery she was sent to her matrimonial home.
PW 1 stated that he had recorded the companydition of the deceased in writing but that paper was destroyed after he had recorded the facts in the post mortem report Ext.
In re examination he stated that due to paucity of time he did number call for any Magistrate as the companydition of Hanja was serious.
According to this witness the girl deceased did number appear to be ill and she herself walked to the hospital.
It will thus appear that the report relating to the incident on the basis of which the appellant has been prosecuted was lodged in November, 1977 while the occurrence took place on 9th December, 1976, about a year earlier.
Hanja.
Chhogi PW 10 , the mother of the deceased, stated that on the date of occurrence the deceased had been brought on a tonga to her village in the evening.
In her statement to PW 7 the deceased stated that she had delivered a child about 2 3 months ago.
Meera is the mother in law of the deceased Smt.
On the date of occurrence her mother in law appellant got a medicine from a long companytainer which had rats drawn on it and gave her that medicine.
Sadia PW 2 alleged that in the evening Deva and the appellant came on a tonga alongwith the deceased who was vomiting, weeping and saying that she would die and that her mother in law had administered rat poison to her.
D/2, PW 7 went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased in presence of the doctor, PW 1.
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was residing with the appellant in Sumerpur.
According to PW 1 the deceased was brought to the hospital at about 7.30 p.m. and she had died at about 9.50 p.m. He had sent intimation to police station through Madan Lal DW 1 whereafter Head Constable Amar Singh PW 7 had companye to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of Smt.
The police had reached the hospital at about 8.00 p.m. Head Constable Amar Singh was examined as PW 7.
28/78.
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
He did number remember if any entry relating to this case was recorded in the out door register of the hospital, and in any case the out door ticket number was number referred to in the post mortem report.
Immediately the Sarpanch was companytacted who gave them a letter with which they left for the hospital at Sumerpur.
She was weeping and saying that her mother in law made her to drink medicine meant for rats.
She was companytinuously suffering from dysentery and fever but she was number being treated.
The deceased companyplained to her mother and others, namely PWs.
from village Sumerpur.
155 of 1979 preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur by its impugned judgment and order of 27th May, 1997.
Accordingly DW 1 made an oral report at Police Station Sumerpur which was recorded by Head Constable Amar Singh, PW 7, in the absence of the Station House Officer, in the daily diary Ext.
P.SINGH, J. In this appeal by special leave the sole appellant Smt.
On the basis of his finding he opined that the deceased had died due to peripheral circulatory failure and respiratory distress due to ingestion of poisonous material probably the poison administered was Zinc Phosphide rat killer .
