SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is & petition under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of the petitioner on bail.

(2.) Birefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was marrried to Geeta (deceased) in December 1979. The case of the prosecution is that the Cr.M(M) 2888/92 petitioner used to beat his wife and on the date of occurrence i.e. 16th July, 1991, gave her severe beating and called her a lady of bad character. At this the deceased lost tamper and poured kerosene oil on herself and set herself ablaze.It has further been Stated that the petitioner tried to extinguish the fire and in this process burnt his hands.

(3.) Mr. Andley, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the parties were married before a period of more than seven years from the date of incident and as such no adverse presumption cap be drawn against-the petitioner. The learned counsel, further subnmitted that the alleged dying declaration was recorded by the IO and that the deceased died after a period of about two months from the date of incident and no step was taken for recording of her statement by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that no reliance can be placed on the said dying declaration. Insupport of his contention he referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dalip Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 1979SCC(Cri)968. In this judgment it was held that although a dying declaration recorded by a police officer, during the course of investigation is admissible, it is better to leave such a dying declaration out of consideration until and unless the prosecution satisfies the court as to why it was not recorded by a magistrate or by a doctor. It was further held in this case that a dying declaration recorded by a police officer may be relied upon if there was no time or facility available to the prosecution for adopting any better method.