ISLAM Vs. STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A document as valuable as a dying declaration is supposed to be fool-proof, it must incorporate the particulars which it is supposed to contain. A dying declaration enjoys almost a sacrosanct status as a piece of evidence as it comes from the mouth of a person who is about to die and at-that stage of life he is not likely to make a false statement.

(2.) Keeping the above principles of law in view, we have to see whether on the basis of statement made by the deceased Mohd. Zafar Imam @ Pan Babu aged about 15 years vide Ex.Public Witness-17/A, conviction and sentence of the appellant can be sustained. Whether the statement of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short the I.O.) vide Ex.Public Witness-17/A enjoys the status of a dying declaration ? Is it a foolproof evidence to prove that it was the appellant who burnt the deceased by pouring Kerosene oil on the deceased on 6/04/1994 ?

(3.) Challenge to the impugned order of conviction and sentence is primarily on the grounds ; (i) that the dying declaration Ex.Public Witness-17/A recorded of the deceased Mohd. Zafar by the 1.0. is not admissible in the evidence because Dr. Neeraj Gupta the doctor on duty who declared the deceased to be fit to make the statement had not been examined; (ii) the MLC has not been proved as per requirement of law; (iii) the alleged dying declaration was neither recorded by the SDM nor by the doctor on duty. Moreover, such a lengthy dying declaration could not have been made by the person who had 95% to 97% burns; (iv) that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There being ho eye-witness to the incidence of burning the mere fact that deceased was employed by the accused by itself is no circumstances to hold the appellant guilty. Hence conviction is bad in law; (v) that there was no motive to kill the deceased; lastly (vi) the alleged absconding of the accused and the sub- sequent arrest from the place as shown by the 1.0. had not been supported by the independent witnesses.