JAIPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four appellants are challenging in this appeal the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.242 DB of 1994. All of them were convicted by the trial Court under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court confirmed their conviction.

(2.) WHAT has been held proved against the appellants is that in view of a dispute regarding their share in the land belonging to the family, they caused the death of Sushma, their brother's wife, by calling her at their house and afterwards pouring kerosene over her body and setting her ablaze. There was no direct evidence. The prosecution had relied upon the dying declaration, Ex.PJ to prove its case. The trial Court accepted the dying declaration as genuine and true and convicted all the four appellants. The High Court also on re -appreciation of the evidence accepted the dying declaration as genuine and true and thought it safe to confirm their conviction on the basis thereof.

(3.) IT was next submitted that when she was taken to the hospital at 7.30 a.m., she was not replying to the questions properly as deposed by the first doctor who had examined her. This submission has also no substance because thereafter she was given treatment and the evidence shows that thereafter she was in a fit condition to make a statement. It was not even suggested to the police officer that she was not able to speak clearly. No attempt was made in the cross -examination of the doctor to show that her condition had not improved between 7.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. and, therefore, this submission also deserves to be rejected. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the statement was not recorded in question -and -answer form and therefore no weight should be attached to it. It also deserves to be rejected as misconceived because a complaint is required to be recorded in question -and -answer form even though there is a possibility that later on it might be treated as a dying declaration. This dying declaration receives corroboration from the site inspection report and also by the application, Ex.PL referring to the compromise arrived at on the previous day. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel namely, Mannu Raja v. State of M.P., [(1976) 3 SCC 104] Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 332] and State (Delhi Admn.) v. Laxman Kumar [(1985) 4 SCC 476] have no relevance to the facts of this case. In those cases, dying declarations were recorded by the police officers during the course of investigation and were found to be suffering from defects of the kind submitted by the learned counsel. As we find no substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel, this appeal is dismissed.