In the meantime, information was received at the police station from Safdarjung Hospital that the deceased had been admitted there and on the basis of the said information, the police rushed to the hospital where they met PWs 1 and 8.
The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded that he was number at home as he had gone to his sisters place, Shyamwati, DW 1 at MJ 1/61, Vikas Puri, Delhi and claimed to be tried.
As the prosecution case would further unfurl after the death took place they proceeded with the investigation, seized the burnt clothes, a quilt, one plastic cane, one match box and match stick and sent the dead body for post mortem.
On an appeal being preferred, the High Court reappreciating the evidence and placing reliance on the oral dying declaration and the testimony of the brother and further accepting the post mortem report found that the learned trial Judge had really number faulted in recording the companyviction.
It is necessary to mention here that after the deceased was taken by her father and brother to the hospital, two neighbours, namely, Shanker Lal and Surender, PW 2 and PW 4 respectively went to the Police Station at Mangol Puri and gave the information about the incident by DD 73 dated 2.11.1997 on the basis of which, the S.I. Vijender Singh, PW 21, went to the place of the occurrence where he met PW 3, the daughter of the deceased, and came to learn that her parents had quarreled and her mother had suffered burn injuries and was taken to the hospital.
From the oral evidence and the seized items from the place of occurrence, it is quite vivid that the deceased had suffered burn injuries which lead to her death.
P 2 that were seized.
Being of this view, it dismissed the appeal.
27 of 1998 whereunder the trial Court had companyvicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused person, examined as many as 21 witnesses and got number of documents exhibited.
We have heard Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. W.A. Quadri, companynsel for the State.
417 of 2001 whereby the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal while affirming the judgment and order dated 17.01.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.
On the fateful day i.e. 2.11.1997 about 1100 p.m., Seema, PW 3, daughter of the deceased, aged about ten years, came running to the house of her grandfather Shivcharan, PW 8, and informed him as well as Satish, brother of the deceased, PW 1, that her father was threatening to burn her mother.
Filtering the unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is that the deceased, Savitri, had entered into wedlock with the appellant herein prior to almost eleven years of the date of occurrence i.e. 2.11.1997.
On the basis of the ocular and the documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge came to hold that the prosecution had established the charge levelled against the accused to the hilt and accordingly companyvicted him under Section 302, I.P.C and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinbefore.
PW 1/A, PW 1/B, PW 1/D, PW 1/E, PW 1/F and Exbt.
The parental home of the deceased was situated at a distance of half a kilometer.
It was PW 3, the daughter of the deceased, who witnessed the quarrel and rushed to the home of her grandparents.
The investigating agency in companyrse of investigation arrested the husband on 03.11.1997 and after recording the statements of number of witnesses laid the chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC before the companypetent Court, which in turn companymitted the matter to the Court of Session and eventually it was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The brother poured water on the deceased in order to extinguish the fire and thereafter took her to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital where she companyld number be admitted due to lack of facility and thereafter they brought her to Safdarjung Hospital where she was admitted.
The information companypelled PWs 1 and 8 to rush to the house of the deceased and, as the factual matrix would show, PW 1, being young in age, reached the house of his sister earlier than his father and found his sister was burning and she told him that it was the accused appellant who had put her ablaze by pouring kerosene.
Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal, the assail is to the judgment and order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
Despite availing treatment, she breathed her last on 3.11.1997 about numbern.
