MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentence of imprisonment for life as was awarded by the trial Judge i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.

(3.) According to the prosecution version as unfolded during the trial, Renu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was set on fire by the appellants who were torturing and harassing her for dowry demand. A boil had developed under her armpit. After making arrangements for her comforts, her husband went out of station. Her mother in law- appellant No. 3 told her that she was telling a lie about the boil under her armpit and she really had no problem. Her father in law (appellant No. 1) wanted her to show the place where the boil was, but the deceased did not show it to him. Her brother in law- appellant No. 2 also used to harass her. On the contrary, her husband did not cause any harassment to her. On the date of occurrence i.e. 15.9.2001, the appellants confined her in a room, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Her father- in- law remarked that on her failure to show him the place where the boil was, she has to die by burning. They were also harassing her for dowry. Her dying declaration was recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class (PW-3) and was exhibited as Ex. PD/4. The learned trial Court put emphasis on the dying declaration and recorded the conviction as afore-noted. The stand of the appellants before the trial Court and the High Court was to the effect that the statement in the so called dying declaration that she had a boil in her armpit was belied by the doctors evidence who found no boil on her body. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-3, whose testimony is the foundation for the conviction by the trial Court, as upheld by the High Court, indicates that there was scope for tutoring the victim. That aspect has been lost sight of by the courts below. The stand of the State before the trial Court as well as the High Court was that sanctity has to be attached to the dying declaration and therefore the appellants were guilty of the charged offences. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the entire case hinges on the dying declaration given by the deceased to the JMFC (PW-3). It was held that the dying declaration clearly implicated the appellants and, therefore, the same was rightly acted upon by the trial Court. Further, the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 i.e. father and mother of the deceased clearly showed that there was demand for dowry. The High Court accordingly upheld the conviction and sentence.