BASANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Basant Singh, a sepoy in the Indo Tibbetan Boarder Police Force, has been found guilty for the offence of Section 498A and 304B IPC by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 29.12.2003 passed in the Sessions Trial No. 12/2000. He has appropriately been sentenced for the same.

(2.) Deceased Smt. Sunita Mehta was ablazed while inside the house of appellant, who had come to his home just a day before from his service place. The incident occurred in the morning of 18.2.2000. She was shifted by her husband Basant Singh in the Government Hospital, Pithoragarh, where she was examined by the Government Doctor at 3.35 PM on the same day. It was found that she was having 100 per cent superficial to deep burns, which were fresh in duration. Smell of kerosene oil was present. She was eight months pregnant. Burn injuries on her body were grave in nature. Her father Bishan Singh somehow got information and moved the FIR Ex. Ka-2 to the Patwari concerned that her daughter has been set ablazed by the appellant by sprinkling the kerosene oil on her body and she was subjected to tormented attitude on account of dowry, while only six years had elapsed since her marriage. The revenue police came into motion and the Tehsildar, Pithoragarh recorded her dying declaration on 20.2.2000 at 10.15 AM while she was in the District Hospital, Pithoragarh. This dying declaration though not preceded by certification of a doctor stating the mental fitness of the injured, but it adverts in so many words that the deceased had taken the blame of setting fire on her body by herself. She has absolutely absolved the appellant, her husband, from setting ablazed even when the Tehsildar concerned had specifically asked the questions in this regard. Even on the suggestion of Tehsildar, as have been told to him by the father of the deceased PW2, the injured/deceased could not incriminate her husband, the appellant.

(3.) It can further be taken note of that no certificate of any doctor has been appended even after recording of such dying declaration. In such matters, the absence of certification by the medical officer disclosing mental and physical fitness of the deceased is not a rule of law. It has nowhere been envisaged either by the Evidence Act or by the Criminal Procedure Code. It is simply a rule of prudence making the dying declaration believable. If the recorder of such dying declaration is satisfied regarding the mental fitness of the injured to make the utterances, then declaration can be recorded even without any certification. Such precedent has been laid down even by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in case of Laxman v. State Maharashtra, 2002 AIR(SC) 2973.