The appellant started ill treating Tejinder Kaur right from the beginning and used to pressurize her to bring money from her parents.
After inquest had been held, the body was sent for post mortem examination, which was carried out by two doctors who found 83 burns thereon.
The statement was thumb marked by the victim.
The High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Initially, the parents, brothers and sisters of the appellant were all residing together but some time thereafter, the appellant started living separately.
At 2.00 p.m. on that day i.e. 22.3.1989 there was a quarrel between her and her husband on account of domestic reasons, namely, about visiting her mothers house and she was asked to bring money from her mother.
The Head Constable immediately summoned PW.9 Dr. Mohammad Khursheed Ahmad, Duty Medical Officer, who examined the injured and found her companyscious.
She protested and said that she will number leave the house.
the dying declaration to falsely implicate him in a murder case.
He has further deposed that at about 10.00 10.30 p.m. Tejinder Kaur regained companysciousness and disclosed to him and his mother that the accused had sprinkled kerosene on her and had set her on fire.
He then visited the hospital and instructed Head Constable PW.10 Dattatray Vinkar to record the statement of Tejinder Kaur when she regained companysciousness.
The seized clothes were sent for medical examination and the report thereof indicated presence of kerosene.
These witnesses have also deposed that Tejinder Kaur gave a statement when she was admitted in the hospital that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene upon her and had set her on fire.
The appellant pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
He was on duty on 22.3.1989 when he was called to Ward No.4.
Chamanbai along with her son Sher Singh went to Police Station Wazirabad, where an FIR of the incident was lodged at 6.30 p.m. P.S.I. Murkute visited the house of the appellant at 7.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989 which companysisted of only one room and seized half burnt sari, petticoat, woolen blanket, mattresses, quilt, pillow, etc.
He held out a threat that Tejinder Kaur should number return until she brought Rs.5,000/ .
It is alleged that after Tejinder Kaur came back to her husbands house, she sent some letters to her mother through a milk vendor companyplaining about ill treatment being meted out to her.
PW.2 Dr. Sanjay has deposed that he is M.S. in General Surgery and was posted in Civil Hospital, Nanded, as a Duty Medical Officer on 22.3.1989.
It has companye in the statement of her brother PW.4 Sher Singh that Tejinder Kaur had studied upto 10th class in a Marathi medium school.
PW.1 Chamanbai mother of the deceased has deposed that the marriage of Tejinder Kaur was performed with the appellant Dayal Singh about six years prior to the incident.
Thereafter the appellant took Tejinder Kaur along with him and went away on his motor cycle.
According to the opinion of the doctors, the death was due to the extensive burns which caused hypovolenic and neurogenic shock leading to cardio respiratory failure.
At about 3.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989, Chamanbai received information that Tejinder Kaur had received burn injuries and she was admitted in the Civil Hospital.
The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution which primarily rested on the dying declaration recorded by PW.10 and companyvicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above.
On enquiry she informed her mother that her husband Dayal Singh had set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her body.
There is absolutely numberreason to cast any doubt on the testimony of PW.10 Dattatray Vinkar and PW.9 Dr. Md. Khursheed Ahmad.
The witness has further deposed that he put questions to Tejinder Kaur to which she gave replies in Marathi, which he recorded in his own hand.
Next day at about 8.00 p.m. he came armed with a sword and threatened Tejinder Kaur that he would kill her if the amount was number given.
About 4 months prior to the incident, the appellant came along with Tejinder Kaur to her parental house and demanded Rs.5,000/ from his mother in law.
PW.10 Head Constable Dattatray Vinkar has deposed that he was posted on duty in the hospital from 8.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989 till 8.00 a.m. on the next day.
After learning about the incident, the witness along with her son Sher Singh went to the Police Station Wazirabad and lodged an FIR of the incident.
Whenever Tejinder Kaur visited her parental home, she used to companyplain about the ill treatment being meted out to her.
At that stage, the appellant poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire by lighting a match stick.
Tejinder Kaur regained companysciousness at about 10.30 p.m., information regarding which was given by her brother PW.4 Sher Singh to Head Constable Dattatray Vinkar.
Her father in law brought her to the hospital for treatment.
About four months prior to the incident, which took place on 22.3.1989, the appellant took Tejinder Kaur to her mothers house, who also resided in Nanded, and after making a demand of Rs.5,000/ he came back alone leaving his wife there.
After the statement had been recorded, he put an endorsement on the same to the effect Patient is companyscious throughout statement.
On the next day, he went to the house of his mother in law Chamanbai with a naked sword in his hand and asked Tejinder Kuar to accompany him and also bring Rs.5,000/ .
At about 10.30 p.m. he received orders from P.S.I. Murkute to record statement of Tejinder Kaur.
The appellant then tore her blouse and sari and tried to drag her out of the house.
Dr. Khursheed Ahmad then examined the victim and informed him that she was companyscious and he companyld record her statement.
He, therefore, went to Ward No.4 where Tejinder Kaur was admitted and after finding her in a companyscious state, he went to Dr. Khursheed Ahmad, Duty Medical Officer, and requested him to companye and examine the victim as her statement had to be recorded.
He had admitted Tejinder Kaur in the hospital in Ward No.4 and at that time she was companyscious.
Both are government servants and they did number at all know the appellant Dayal Singh and had absolutely numberreason to fabricate a document, viz.,
In his cross examination he has reiterated that he had examined Tejinder Kaur and had a talk with her and after being satisfied that she was companyscious, he asked the Head Constable to record her statement.
He also stated that after companying to know about the fire, he rushed inside the house and tried to extinguish the fire, in which process he also received burn injuries and he remained admitted in the hospital for treatment till 8.4.1989.
Though she was subjected to a lengthy cross examination, but she stuck to her statement that the appellant used to make demand of money and used to threaten Tejinder Kaur and she was afraid of him.
That apart, the fact that she gave a statement Ex.31 has number only been deposed to by PW.10 Dattatray Vinkar, Head Constable, but also by PW.9 Dr. Khursheed Ahmad who is highly qualified and responsible government servant.
The money companyld number be paid by the mother of the deceased.
After marriage she companytinued to live in the said place, viz.,
His main defence was that he had never made any demand for money and in fact he had deposited some money in the account of Tejinder Kaur and had also purchased land in her name.
She has further deposed that she begged the accused number to behave in that manner as she had numbermoney.
He had put his signature below that endorsement.
She further stated that as she was wearing a polyester sari, she immediately caught fire and sustained burns in her chest, abdomen, legs and private parts.
A formal dying declaration of Tejinder Kaur was recorded by PW.10 Dattatray Vinkar, Head Constable in the presence of PW.9 Dr. Khursheed Ahmad who was the Duty Medical Officer in the hospital.
She immediately rushed to the hospital and on enquiry Tejinder Kaur disclosed that she was set ablaze by the accused by pouring kerosene on her person.
She immediately rushed to the Civil Hospital and saw Tejinder Kaur admitted in the ward.
In her statement Ex.31 Tejinder Kaur stated that her marriage with the appellant had taken place 5 years back.
At about 00.45 hours on 23.3.1989 Tejinder Kaur succumbed to her injuries.
Shri M.N. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, has submitted that the original dying declaration is in Marathi language and Tejinder Kaur being a sikh lady, she companyld number have made a statement in the said language as in numbermal companyrse of events, she would have spoken in Gurmukhi.
The appellant used to ill treat Tejinder Kaur and used to ask her to bring money from her parents.
She also produced two letters which were allegedly sent by the deceased to her through a milk vendor.
PW.4 Sher Singh is brother of Tejinder Kaur.
He has clearly deposed that he had examined the victim and had talked to her and she was companyscious throughout when her statement was being recorded by PW.10.
In his cross examination, he stated that the information had earlier been sent to Special Judicial Magistrate for recording statement of the victim.
Having lived in Nanded and having studied upto 10th class in a Marathi medium school, there is numberhing abnormal in Tejinder Kaur giving her statement in Marathi language.
After companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 498 A and 302 IPC.
Her daughter Sharanpal, who was sitting near her, had also sustained some burns and was taken outside by the appellant.
He examined Tejinder Kaur at about 11.00 p.m. and found that she was companyscious and was in a position to give her statement.
He further stated in his statement which was given in writing that Tejinder Kaur caught fire when she was companyking food on stove and at that time he was number present in the house.
After her marriage, she started living with the appellant at Gurdwara Gate No.2, Nanded.
He was subjected to a fairly lengthy cross examination but numberhing has companye out which may discredit his testimony.
She has further deposed that some time after she had returned, Tejinder Kaur regained companysciousness.
The statement Ex.31 was recorded by PW.10 and Dr. Khursheed Ahmad made an endorsement thereon that the patient was companyscious throughout her statement.
PW.9 Dr. Mohammad Khursheed Ahmad has deposed that he is MBBS MD and was posted as Medical Officer in SGGM Hospital, Nanded for the past four years.
Regarding the main incident, she deposed that at about 3.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989 one Biru Singh came and informed that Tejinder Kaur had received burn injuries and was in the hospital.
He has companyroborated the statement of his mother Chamanbai regarding the ill treatment being meted out by the appellant to his sister and the demand of money and the earlier incident when the appellant had companye armed with a sword and had given threats when the money was number paid to him.
The recording of the statement companymenced at 22.50 hours on 22.3.1989 and it took about 15 20 minutes.
Head Constable Dattatray Vinkar then asked the family members to leave the ward and thereafter statement of Tejinder Kaur was recorded.
He has also deposed that when the Head Constable had called the doctor for recording the statement of the victim, he and other relations were asked to leave the ward.
Dr. Khursheed Ahmad is a highly qualified person being MBBS and MD and was posted in the Civil Hospital, Nanded, and his duty hours were from 8.00 p.m. on 22.3.1989 to 8.00 a.m. on the following day.
When she caught fire, she cried for help, on which her mother in law and neighbours came there and extinguished the fire by pouring water.
Nanded.
Thereafter, Dr. Khursheed Ahmad made an endorsement on the same and put his signatures thereon.
The Head Constable then recorded her statement and he was throughout present by her side.
He found two sunmics companys partially burnt, a stove, a kerosene tin and an empty gas cylinder.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Tejinder Kaur, daughter of the companyplainant PW.1 Chamanbai, was married to the appellant five or six years prior to the incident and she had two daughters, Pritpal and Sharanpal.
P. MATHUR, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.1.2005 of Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench , by which the appeal filed by the appellant Dayal Singh was dismissed and his companyviction under Section 498 A and 302 IPC and sentence of six months R.I. and imprisonment for life respectively, as recorded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, by the judgment and order dated 23.3.1990, were affirmed.
The witness has categorically deposed that whatever was stated by Tejinder Kaur was recorded in her own words.
Thereafter, the statement of Tejinder Kaur was recorded by PW.10 where she gave details of the occurrence, namely, demand of dowry by the appellant and how the appellant had set her on fire by pouring kerosene.
The statements of PW.1 Chamanbai who is the mother and PW.4 Sher Singh who is the brother of the deceased, companyclusively establish the fact that the appellant was ill treating the deceased Tejinder Kaur as his demand for bringing money from her parental home had number been fulfilled.
