LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-5

DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

Decided On August 28, 2006
DINESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition exposes a sad state of affair in the matter relating to investigation conducted by the local police relating to an incident that took place on 10.3.2006 in the wee hours within the jurisdiction of Police Station Alipur. In the said incident, a young boy aged 21 years lost his life. A colour is given to the investigation as if the deceased Pramod who lost his life in the incident died by committing suicide. A FIR under Section 309 IPC was registered with Police Station Alipur. The deceased Pramod was taken in burnt condition to the Hospital where he was declared unconscious and unfit to make statement around 11.30 A.M. on the date of incident itself. He was declared fit for his statement the next day, i.e., 11.3.2006, when his dying declaration was recorded by the SDM.

(2.) My attention has been drawn to the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the SDM which is in question and answer form. The said dying declaration is at pages 18 and 19 of the paper book. I have gone through the same and given my anxious consideration to the answers given by the deceased to the SDM.

(3.) A perusal of the said dying declaration points out a needle of suspicion on deceased's maternal uncle-in-law who had set the deceased ablaze. The deceased Pramod in his said dying declaration had also disclosed the motive as to why he was set ablaze by his maternal-uncle-in-law. The motive disclosed by him was that his wife-Sangeeta was having extra-marital relations with the husband of her sister and there was dispute between him and his in-laws. The deceased Pramod when he was asked about his relations with his in-laws had disclosed to the SDM that his mother-in-law never treated him as her son-in-law though he had no complaint against his father-in-law. The name of the maternal uncle of deceased's wife has clearly come in the dying declaration recorded on the next date of the incident as soon as the deceased was declared fit for statement but still the I.O. seems to have ignored the same. In the dying declaration recorded by the SDM, the deceased had specifically named his maternal uncle-in-;aw as the person who set him ablaze.