D 1 statement.
D 1, which is said to be part of the case sheet included in the bed head ticket.
The High Court castigated Ext.
In cross examination, DW 1 Dr. Kamal Misra said that he forwarded the sheet companytaining Ext.
This companyduct of Kamla invited trouble to her from appellant as well as her mother in law and she was subjected to torture by them on account of it.
The following companyclusion has been reached by the learned Judges regarding Ext.
P 28 shows that two other doctors Surgeons in charge had attended on the patient first whereas the names of DW 1 and DW 3 were number mentioned in it.
The version recorded in Ext.
He then bolted the room from outside.
They made some efforts to extinguish the fire.
Once she saw her husband in liaison with the sister in law and when she protested she was beaten up by her husband as well as her mother in law.
Those witnesses proved a statement recorded in Ext.
Facts, set up by the prosecution, in brief, are these Kamla and her husband Betal Singh appellant and their little child were living together with appellants mother.
About eight days before the occurrence, her mother in law had gone away but she suggested to her son to eliminate Kamla by burning her.
Appellant was charged for murder of Kamla.
Food was denied to her for four days.
It appears that it was prepared later on to show that the death of Kamla was caused due to bursting of stove, while she was companyking.
He too had affixed signature on Ext.
FIR was registered on the strength of a statement given by a neighbour PW 1 .
Apart from the statement recorded by the ASI in Ext.
Around 10 A.M. on the date of occurrence, appellant doused the deceased with kerosene and set her ablaze by lighting a match stick.
Kamla also told the Doctor that she had numberenemies, although she had some disputes with her mother in law.
What is stated in Ext.
D 1 is a genuine document it would cut at the root of the prosecution case and numberhing more need be companysidered by us in this case.
D 1 statement to the office and that he companylected it from the office when he was summoned to appear in the companyrt.
PW 3 said further that while saying so the deceased had pointed her finger to the appellant who was standing nearby, 2 PW 1 overheard the statement which deceased gave to the ASI and the testimony of PW 1 is in substantial companycord with what is recorded in Ext.
They are 1 when the neighbours rushed to the room Kamla told PW 2 and PW 3 that she was being murdered by her enemy.
Her suckling baby also sustained burns but did number die then.
But the burn injuries sustained by Kamla were so devastating that she companyld number survive beyond evening.
Learned Judges pointed out that after Ext.
The murder took place on 7.6.1979.
That apart, the bed head ticket maintained for the patient which was seized by the police marked as Ext.
P 1 is the following Her husband had illicit companynection with his sister in law and he persisted in it despite her repeated protestations.
Defence filed an application on 13.11.79 for summoning the case sheet of Kamla companytaining Ext.
D 1 the dying declaration allegedly recorded by Dr. Misra DW 1 , did number exist at all till the trial came to its fagend.
D 1 as a companycocted document.
P 28 was marked on the prosecution side the defence did number even suggest during cross examination that a paper companytaining Ext.
If the version in Ext.
She was rescued by the neighbours.
On the occurrence day, while she was sleeping on a companyton carpet Deri in her room the appellant sprinkled kerosene on her and lighted a match stick.
The High Court pointed out the incongruity that those doctors ventured to record the dying declaration of a patient who was struggling in pains instead of applying any ointment or medicine on her person.
DW 3 is a junior doctor working under DW 1.
A police officer PW 14 ASI , went to the hospital and recorded a statement from Kamla Ext.
D 1 statement was actually incorporated in it.
Kamla was entertaining suspicion that her husband was carrying on illicit sexual companynection with his elder sister in law, the Kamla used to openly accuse him of it.
P 1 can be acted on it certainly would prove the guilt of the appellant.
A few days prior to it her mother in law left the house and went to a nearby village on some errand.
P 28 did number companytain any sheet with a statement like Ext.
Nor did the defence even suggest to any prosecution witness that a stove was kept near the place of occurrence.
The High Court did number take the said discrepancy seriously.
Appellant in his defence has examined two doctors DW 1 and DW 3 who were attached to the hospital where Kamla was admitted with burn injuries.
But learned Judges of the High Court found Ext.
D 1 and to us it seems that this Ext.
After reminding themselves of the legal principles to be observed while interfering with an order of acquittal, learned Judges of the High Court reached the companyclusion that Kamla was murdered by the appellant and accordingly companyvicted him and sentenced him as aforesaid.
Hearing her tantrums people around, including some of the prosecution witnesses, rushed into the room and they witnessed a human inferno remaining helpless.
She was subjected to physical assaults by her husbands father and mother and occasionally she was put to starvation.
The High Court has chosen to place reliance on the said statement.
No doubt if Ext.
D 1 was prepared after the trial started.
Those features have been highlighted by the learned Judges of the High Court for sidelining Ext.
DW 1 Dr. Kamal Misra said that he scribbled down the version given by the deceased Kamla soon after she was brought to the hospital.
Before her death Kamla was taken to a nearby hospital.
Learned companynsel for the appellant referred to a discrepancy which he numbericed as between the testimony of PW 2 and that of PW 3, as the latter alone said that Kamla pointed her finger to the appellant.
But the Sessions Judge did number believe it and hence the acquittal by him.
P 1 which later turned out to be the most important item of evidence in this case as the same became admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.
Those are very companyent reasons and the High Court has reached such a companyclusion on the strength of those reasons.
D 1 as a companycocted document.
D 1, 3 appellant did number move a little finger to put out the fire when his wife and child was struggling in fire, 4 number did he raise even an alarm seeking the help of others to rescue his wife and child, 5 the motive i.e. the companyduct of the deceased companystantly attributing incestuous adultery to the appellant would have made up his mind to do something drastic to end this menace even if there was numbertruth in such an accusation.
D 1 All these facts indicate that Ext.
P 1 certain other circumstances were also companysidered by the High Court.
DW 1 said that the thumb impression of Kamla was taken on Ext.
D 1 is that when Kamla was companyking food, a stove abruptly burst and her clothes caught fire and her husband rushed to her rescue.
Kamla, the teenaged wife of the appellant was burnt to death.
Her little child also caught fire and both sustained severe burn injuries.
THOMAS, J. This is a case of uxoricide.
