PREM SINGH NEGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment dated 27th February, 2004, of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was charged that on 21st July,2001 at about 10 a.m. at B1/1 18 Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, he committed the murder of Smt. Ruby Nayal, wife of Shri. Rakesh Nayal, by pouring kerosene oil on her and burning her resulting in her death and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 IPC. Since the appellant claimed to be not guilty, this led to the trial of the appellant leading to his conviction by the impugned judgment. The case set out by the prosecution before the Trial Court reads as follows: -

(2.) THE accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had denied the allegation levelled against him and claimed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused examined himself as DW1 and also examined Smt. Sarla Devi as DW2. He has stated that on 21st July, 2001, he was present in his house at RZ 243, Rajnagar, Palam Colony, Delhi along with his parents, wife and children and on that day he had slipped in the bathroom due to his weak left eye -sight and had sustained injuries on his shoulder at about 7.30 am and he was taken to Sunil Memorial Hospital by his wife and mother where he remained admitted from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm. DW2, Smt. Sarla Devi who is the resident of RZ 246, Rajnagar, Palam Colony and the neighbour of the accused deposed that she knew the accused Prem Singh Negi for the last 15 years and he treated her like his sister. She stated that on 21st July, 2001 she went to Safdarjung Hospital after receiving a call from the PW14 mother -in -law of the deceased Ruby and remained in the hospital from 12.00 noon to 5.00 PM and during the period Ruby remained unconscious and no police official or doctor had attended her or came near her in her presence and that whole body of Ruby except face was covered with bandages.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Eklavya Nagpal has submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case as deposed by him as a defence witness. The main case set up by the appellant is that the dying declaration of the deceased, Ex. PW1/A is false and is not worthy of belief as this has been recorded in total contravention of Delhi High Court Rules, Chapter XIII and in particular Rules 1, 2 and 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 1 clearly prescribed that as far as the dying declaration is concerned, it should be recorded in the manner prescribed in Chapter XIIIA. He further stated that Rule 2 clearly postulates that dying declaration should be recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. Rules 1, 2 and 7 of Chapter XIIIA Volume III of Delhi High Court Rules provide as follows: -