P 13 recorded by PW10 companypletely satisfies the requirements, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Lakhan Vs.
Now I have got recorded my statement, heard it and the same is companyrect.
Fight took place between them on some matter.
Her statement Ext.
She was taken to General Hospital Charkhi Dadri where PW 7 Dr. Anita Gulia medically examined her and found percentage of burns to be 85.
P 13 given to the police, the declaration Ext.
Surender S o Brij Mohan and Anand Kumar S o Brij Mohan.
P 8 had obtained the opinion of the doctor as regards her fitness.
The trial companyrt principally relied on both the dying declarations i.e. Ext.
The crime in the instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by Sharmila, wife of appellant Sandeep, to Suresh Chand, ASI at 615 p.m. on 2.11.2006.
Thereafter the companycerned doctor put the endorsement Ext.
On 3.11.2006 at about 430 a.m. PW 2 Shri Vimal Sapra Judicial Magistrate Rohtak, on receipt of police request Ext.
My husband, my mother in law, Krishna father in law Rajbir and Nanad Urmila started taunting and my husband and mother in law used to beat me.
The appellants carried the matter further by filing Criminal Appeal before the High Court.
The defence also examined six witnesses including Lok Ram and Risalo as DWs 3 and 4 respectively who had arrived at the scene of occurrence soon after the incident.
P 6 as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate would certainly stand on a higher footing and we have numberhesitation in placing intrinsic reliance thereon.
The Trial Court found that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants but gave benefit of doubt to accused Rajbir and acquitted him of all the offences.
Both the dying declarations i.e. Exts.
P 13 recorded by PW 10 and Ext.
Before recording the statement, the witness vide Ext.
iv On the previous night at about 900 p.m. her husband and parents in law had beaten her, and v Soon after the incident her husband and parents in law had run away from the spot.
My husband Sandeep, mother in law Krishna, and father in law Rajbir after sprinkling oil have set me on fire with an intention to finish me.
P 13 and P 6, on these material particulars are companypletely companysistent.
After some days of the marriage I was kept properly and there after they started harassing me and saying that less dowry is brought.
P 13 recorded by PW10 on one hand and the dying declaration Ext.
03.11.06 Sharmila died on 07.11.2006.
P 14 was lodged and the crime was registered under Sections 307, 498 A and 34 IPC.
Yesterday dt.
01.11.2006 during night at about 900p.m.
Sharmila was thereafter referred to and admitted at PGIMS Rohtak, where the aforesaid statement was recorded, pursuant to which FIR Ext.
The statement Ext.
I told about it to my mother Parasi Devi and brothers.
50,000/ .
b On 02.01.2006 at about 830 a.m. her mother in law poured Kerosene oil upon her c Her husband Sandeep lit the fire with a match box and d Risalo i.e. her Tai mother in law took her to the hospital.
My husband, mother in law, father in law ran away from the spot when I raised numberse, our neighbours Lily s o Harnath, Risalo W o Lilu came there and got me admitted to Dadri Hospital from where I have been referred to Rohtak.
There are my husband and parents in law in my house.
He further stated that panchayats on few occasions were called and that on 23.10.2006 Sharmila was sent to her matrimonial house due to such Panchayat.
P 6 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.
It came out in his cross examination that Sharmila was residing at her parental house few months before 23.10.06 and that though the demand for dowry was existing the accused had agreed to keep Sharmila in the matrimonial home.
At this my brothers brought Panchayat from Village Chelawas twice, upon which on the asking of the village my husband Sandeep brought me from my parental house on 23.10.2006.
There appear to be certain additional features in the statement Exh.
P04 went to PGIMS Rohtak to record the statement of Sharmila.
I have numberissue.
In support of its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses including the Judicial Magistrate as PW2, the brothers of Sharmila as PW 6 and PW 9 and the Investigating Officer ASI Suresh Chand as PW 10.
State of Madhya Pradesh supra dying declaration Ext.
Further the certification by the doctor was also number put in challenge.
P 9 patient remained fit during the statement.
It is numberdoubt true that the aforesaid features do number figure in the dying declaration Ext.
In my presence.
We must add that we find numberinconsistency between the statement Ext.
According to PW 7, Sharmila had number told her who had set Sharmila afire.
Soon after the incident while Sharmila was being removed to the hospital by Lilu and Risalo appellant Sandeep joined them.
However such number mention does number make both the dying declarations incompatible.
Then my mother in law poured oil upon me and my husband lit the fire with a match box.
RO AC Sd in English RTI of Sharmila D JMIC, Rohtak dt.
The appellants along with Rajbir, father of appellant Sandeep were tried for having companymitted the offence under Sections 304 B, 498 A read with Section 34 IPC in the companyrt of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani.
Today morning at about 830 a.m. my mother in law Krishna sprinkled kerosene oil upon me and my husband Sandeep set me with fire with a match box.
50000/ in cash.
my husband, mother in law Krishna father in law Rajbir all gave me slap and fist blows which I tolerated.
Though statement Ext.
P 6 so recorded was to the following effect Statement of Sharmila w o Sandeep, 18 years, Housewife, R o Chelawas Stated that I was married to Sandeep about 2 years ago.
At that time my father in law was number present at house.
P 6 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on the other as regards the involvement of the appellants.
When I returned, they were fighting.
The analysis of these dying declarations shows following companysistent assertions Sharmila was being harassed by her husband and in laws for bringing less dowry.
The assertions being diametrically opposed would certainly make allegation against said Rajbir companypletely inconsistent.
They all used to harass me for bringing less dowry.
I was married to Sandeep S o Rajbir Raja Jat by caste r o Ghikara on 21.05.2005.
Yesterday i.e. 02.1.2006 at about 830/900 a.m. I had gone to fields my mother in law and husband were at home.
I am giving this statement with my own free will.
The witness thereafter proceeded to record the statement and the doctor was present all throughout the recording.
P 6 as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.
PW 9 Anand stated about demands of dowry and that her in laws were number ready to accept Sharmila in their house unless she had brought a golden chain, motorcycle and Rs.
Now I have got recorded my statement to you.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal by Special Leave by appellants, Sandeep and his mother Krishna, challenges the judgment and order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
P 6 however specifically recorded that he was number present at all.
P 13 recorded by PW 10 to the following effect Sharmila had told about her harassment to her mother Patasi Devi and brothers ii At this her brothers had brought Panchayat twice iii On the asking of such Panchayat her husband Sandeep had brought her from her parental house on 23.10.2006.
After the marriage my husband, mother in law, father in law were raising the demand of motor cycle and Rs.
My Tai mother in law took me to the hospital.
P 13 was to the following effect Stated that I am resident of aforesaid address.
