STATE GOVERNMENT OF DELHI Vs. SUMITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this double murder case, respondents acquittal is questioned on account of being palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstratably unsustainable.

(2.) IN the morning of 20.03.1996 Meenu and her infant child, aged about 7 months, had sustained burn injuries in the house of the respondents, who happen to be mother-in-law, brother-in-law (jeth) and sister-in-law (jethani) of Meenu, who was married to Sanjay, son of the 1st respondent, about 1 years prior to this incident. The first information of this incident was given by Meenu herself in the hospital before Sh.K.K.Dahiya, SDM and on its basis, FIR No. 110/96 of this case was registered initially for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC against the respondents. When Meenu and her infant child had succumbed to the burn injuries, the 1st and 3rd respondents were accused of committing their murder and the statement of Meenu (Ex.PW1/A), which was recorded in question and answer form, became the dying declaration and the foundation of the prosecution case set up against the respondents.

(3.) TRIAL court in the impugned judgment of 23rd October, 1998 took note of the fact that Sh.K.K.Dahiya, SDM (PW-1) had categorically deposed that the thumb of Meenu was not injured and therefore observed that the thumb impression of Meenu on the Dying Declaration (Ex.PW-1/A) may be genuine but had proceeded to still examine as to whether Meenu was mentally fit to give a coherent version of the occurrence. In the impugned judgment it is noticed that at 1:55 pm, on the day of the incident, Ct.Natter Singh (PW- 12) had conveyed to the police station that Meenu wanted to make statement and the SDM (PW-1) had reached the hospital around 4:30 pm and had completed the recording of the statement of Meenu at 5.10 pm.