SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 30.1.2010.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day, the appellants had approached the deceased at his shop for the recharge of mobile phone and when the deceased insisted on payment, there was an exchange of hot words and the appellants threatened to set the deceased's shop on fire. The deceased thereafter, left his shop on a motorcycle. He was followed by the appellants. On the way he was stopped, kerosene oil was poured upon him from a bottle and he was set on fire.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have submitted that though the story of the prosecution is that the kerosene oil was poured upon the deceased from the bottle, there is not evidence on record to suggest that the appellants were carrying bottle of kerosene when they visited the shop of the deceased for recharge of mobile phone, nor there is any evidence to show as to from where they came in possession of the bottle of kerosene. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution case is mainly based upon th purported dying declaration of the deceased made in presence of the Investigating Officer when his statement as recorded in RML Hospital on 11.2.2008. Learned counsels submitted that the aforesaid dying declaration is not reliable because of the reason that as per the first MLC of the deceased prepared at DDU Hospital, he himself went to the hospital and gave a history of having suffered fire burns but did not name either of the appellants as culprits. His second MLC was prepared at RML Hospital when he was admitted there by his family members and even in that MLC the names of the appellants were not mentioned as culprits. In these circumstances, it is urged that the veracity of the dying declaration purportedly recorded by the Investigating Officer is suspect.