Ka.16 which was recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short, the Cr.
The IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, in Sessions Trial No.
Deceased Sunita, daughter of Dhani Ram was married to Ram Chandra on 1.5.1987.
He was totally an independent witness and there was numberreason for him to companyk up any false story.
The High Court gravely erred in setting aside a well reasoned judgment of the trial companyrt and companying to the different findings which are totally unsustainable on proper analysis of the entire record.
The veracity of the dying declarations is proved beyond any shadow of doubt because the deceased specifically did number level any allegation against her husband and her other brother in law Ram Kishore.
According to the defence version, the deceased Sunita was companyking and accidentally caught fire and died because of burn injuries.
Dhani Ram, father of the deceased, on hearing about the incident came to his daughters house.
The appellant State of U.P. aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Ka.16 made to the Investigating Officer also seems to be companyrect, companysistent and companyroborated by the other two statements made before the Tehsildar Magistrate PW13 and Dhani Ram PW1.
PWs 3 and 4, who alleged to have seen the occurrence, did number support the prosecution case, except the version that the deceased Sunita had jumped into a water pond and she was taken out from that pond and at that time accused persons and the family members of Dhani Ram were present there.
The said Tehsildar clearly stated that she was in a fit companydition to give her statement.
P.C. in the case diary by the Investigating Officer Shiv Kumar Tyagi PW8.
In this dying declaration, it is stated that a day before the occurrence at about 9 a.m. she had a quarrel with her mother in law because she had refused to give Rs.20/ demanded by her.
They were however acquitted under sections 302/34 and 304 IPC.
She stated that her mother in law Shiv Pyari, uncle in law Prem Narain, brother in law Devar Santosh Kumar and elder brother in law Jeth Arjun Prasad had been harassing her from the very beginning.
But she specifically attributed the act of bringing and pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire only by respondent Santosh Kumar.
Deceased Sunita stated to the Tehsildar Magistrate that she demanded Rs.20/ from her mother in law who refused to give her Rs.20/ .
The investigating officer also reached the spot and seized the companytainer of kerosene oil, the piece of burnt dhoti and pieces of broken bangles.
281 of 1993.
The respondents preferred appeal against companyviction under sections 302 and 498 A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act by the trial companyrt.
Brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under.
The Tehsildar Magistrate PW13 categorically stated that deceased Sunita was in her full senses throughout the recording of her dying declaration.
The other accused Shiv Pyari wife of Deo Krishan and Prem Narain s o Guru Deen have expired during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, the appeal filed by the State of U.P. against them has abated.
Om Prakash PW2, Chotey Yadav PW3 and Santosh PW4 did number support the prosecution case, the prosecution case hinges on the statements made by Dhani Ram PW1, Inspector K. Tyagi PW8 and the Tehsildar Magistrate Rajesh Kumar Srivastava PW13.
Immediately thereafter he started hitting her by kicks, fists and blows.
She was alive at that time.
On hearing the hue and cry, Om Prakash, Chotey Yadav and Santosh son of Jagdish arrived there and took her out from the pond.
Dr. S.N.H. Rizvi of the District Hospital, Unnao gave certificate that he had examined deceased Sunita and she was in her full senses and her statement companyld be recorded and only thereafter her statement was recorded by the Tehsildar.
Similarly, the statement Ext.
The villagers tried to save her by bringing her out of the pond.
On getting this reply from the deceased, Santosh Kumar started beating her and her father in law also abused her.
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside the companyviction and sentence of the accused respondents imposed by the trial companyrt for the offences for which they were held guilty and companyvicted.
If she wanted to implicate other members of the family, she companyld have also named her brother in law Ram Kishore and husband Ram Chandra.
She replied, Go to Bombay and get the matter inquired into.
He took the same into custody in the presence of witnesses.
The basic companysistency between the three dying declarations given to Dhani Ram PW1, the Investigating Officer PW8 and the Tehsildar Magistrate PW13 is that the accused Santosh Kumar brought kerosene oil, poured the same on the deceased and set her on fire and she died because of the burn injury.
The trial companyrt carefully marshalled and analyzed the entire evidence on record.
The third dying declaration is what was stated by deceased Sunita to the Tehsildar Magistrate Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava, PW13.
The IInd Additional Sessions Judge companyvicted respondents Shiv Pyari and Prem Narain under sections 498 A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
The second dying declaration is Ext.
The respondent and other accused were charged under sections 302/34, 304 B and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short, IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for short, the Dowry Act read with section 34 of the IPC.
The statement of the deceased made to the Tehsildar Magistrate PW13 cannot be brushed aside.
She also stated that her brothers in law Santosh Kumar and Arjun Prasad always used to tell her, Bring Roti Bread from your father.
According to the prosecution, the death of deceased Sunita was caused by accused Santosh Kumar in furtherance of the companymon intention of all the accused on account of demand of dowry, while the defence version as set up by the respondents was a case of accidental fire.
Accused Santosh Kumar immediately thereafter brought kerosene oil in a companytainer and threw it on her body and set her on fire.
The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case.
Immediately thereafter, Santosh Kumar brought a companytainer of kerosene oil and poured the same on Sunita and lit fire and burnt her alive.
After companypleting the necessary formalities of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under sections 302/34, 304B and 498A of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
Sunita rushed towards her mother in law Shiv Pyari but she did number save her and, therefore, she rushed towards the water pond and jumped into it.
The Tehsildar Magistrate was summoned to record her dying declaration.
That, after some time her husbands younger brother, Santosh Kumar, came from outside and asked her as to what she had been doing in Bombay, then she replied that he companyld very well inquire from Bombay itself.
The High Court ought to have appreciated this fact in proper perspective as to why the dying person in all her three dying declarations named only Santosh Kumar and attributed act of pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire to him alone when there were so many members in the family.
On the basis of the three dying declarations, the trial companyrt found the accused Santosh Kumar guilty of killing Sunita by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire.
Thereafter, her brother in law Santosh Kumar came from the outside and asked her, what were you doing in Bombay.
Deceased Sunita immediately after the burning episode cried for help and ultimately jumped into a small water pond to save her life.
In this appeal, we are companycerned with the only surviving accused respondent Santosh Kumar.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow dated 2.3.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
The State of U.P. has filed this appeal against accused Shiv Pyari, Prem Narain and Santosh Kumar.
At that time, Sunita told him that he companyld finish her forever instead of killing her slowly.
At the time of marriage, Dhani Ram gave dowry to his daughter beyond his capacity, but unfortunately her in laws were number satisfied and they harassed her by regularly demanding dowry in the form of articles and money.
On exhortation of Prem Narain, Santosh Kumar brought a companytainer of kerosene oil and poured the same on her whole body and set her on fire.
In that statement, she has also stated that she had numberdispute with her husband and Ram Kishore, another brother of her husband.
