The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration, while upholding the life imprisonment of a murder accused who had set his wife on fire in 2014.
"It is trite law that, if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration..," observed the high court.
The appellant was aggrieved against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Palwal, Haryana, whereby he has been convicted in an FIR of March 25, 2014 for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 25,000. He is convicted of murdering his wife.
The division bench, comprising Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain, passed these orders on Thursday while dismissing the appeal filed by Sukhbir.
The main complainant in the case Sonu Mohanti, brother of the deceased woman, had turned hostile during the trial.
As per his statement earlier, Ranjana was married to accused Sukhbir in 2008. There was a discord between them from the beginning and Sukhbir used to maltreat her and beat her without any rhyme or reason.
Twice she left his house and went to parental home in Jharkhand. However, she was sent back. In January 2014, Sukhbir visited Jharkhand to bring Ranjana back. He assured that he will not maltreat her and thus Ranjana was sent back by her parents.
In order to ensure that Ranjana felt safe, Mohanti accompanied her and started living in the same premises. On March 23, 2014, at about 6-7 pm Sukhbir, in drunken condition, started beating Ranjana.
With the intervention of the complainant, Ranjana could be saved. However, at around midnight, he woke up to the shrieks of his sister and found her engulfed in fire. Sukhbir was present in the room. On seeing Mohanti, he fled.
Ranjana disclosed to her brother that Sukhbir took her to his room and sprinkled kerosene over her and lit fire with match-stick. Immediately after the incident, Mohanti recorded his statement when his sister was unfit to record her statement.
She was taken to Government Hospital, Palwal from where she was later referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi for treatment.
However, on March 28, 2014, doctors opined Ranjana (34) to be fit to make statement which was recorded by a Magistrate wherein she narrated the sequence of events and stated that the couple had got married in 2008 and have two children and her husband used to beat her up after consuming liquor.
Ranjana had in her statement stated that her husband had an illicit relationship with her sister-in-law ('Jethani') and it was Sukhbir who had set her ablaze.
Ranjana succumbed to her injuries on May 5, 2014.
Sukhbir was tried for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for having murdered his wife. Mohanti was declared hostile.
On evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court found that: “The fact that PW1 (Mohanti) has turned hostile is undoubtedly a relevant consideration but is not the sole determinative factor for deciding the guilt or for otherwise of the deceased.
"With these observations, it is held that the dying declaration of the victim as recorded by PW9 (Magistrate) on 28.03.2014 is worthy of reliance and fully proves that the accused had immolated the victim on the intervening night of 24/25.03.2014".
The trial court observed that the dying declaration of the victim when tested on the anvil of admissibility is fully admissible and no intrinsic infirmity could be pointed out in this statement.
"Hence, in my opinion, the same deserves to be relied upon without corroboration from any other source and while accepting the same, it stands fully proved that the victim had died due to sustaining burn injuries caused by the accused by immolating her with any intention to kill her and in this way he proved to have committed the murder of the victim," the trial court had held.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant having resiled from his statement, dying declaration alone is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty.
On the other hand, counsel for the State contended that, as per settled law once the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version, it does not need any corroboration.
"In our view, dying declaration of the victim proved on record proves the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt. Finding no merit in the present appeal the same is ordered to be dismissed," the high court bench held.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
