NARINDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. S.S. Sahi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, learned Dy. Advocate General, Punjab and, with their assistance, gone through the records of the case. We are quite convinced that in this open and shut case there is no scope for any argument nor any such arguments have been raised that might make any dent in the prosecution version. The statement made by Daljit Kaur, which now partakes the character of a dying declaration, is in itself, in our view, enough to return a finding of guilt against the appellant. We find absolutely no infirmity in this dying declaration and the same is reliable in its entirety. Daljit Kaur was taken to hospital on November 27, 1988. On that day, she was unfit to make a statement as is clearly made out from the depositions of the doctors examined in this case. On November 28, 1988 she was in a position to make a statement. The fact that she was conscious when she made a statement, has been authenticated by Dr. Rajnish Mandrella, who, before, signing, mentioned that "patient was fully conscious throughout her statement." Dr. Rajnish Mandrella, who has been examined as PW5, has proved that certificate Ex. PE was in his hand and vide this certificate he had declared Daljit Kaur fit to make a statement. He further stated that he had attested the statement of Daljit Kaur and that she was fully conscious throughout her statement. Nothing could at all be brought from his statement when he was cross-examined that Daljit Kaur had not made a statement or that she was not conscious or that Dr. Rajnish Mandrella had not given the certificate with regard to her being conscious throughout her statement. Dr. Rajnish Mandrella's statement inspires confidence. He is an independent witness and has no axe to grind. Nothing at all has been brought on records to show from where it may be gathered that he was either interested with the father of the deceased or was inimical to the appellant. His statement has been duly corroborated by ASI Lakhbir Singh, PW9. Not only that, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who, to some extent had tried to support the appellant, had also admitted that Daljit Kaur was conscious when she reached the hospital. Much ado about nothing has been made from reading the cross-examination of Dr. Kundan Lal, Medical Superintendent to show that Daljit Kaur was not conscious when she made a statement. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was having 70 to 90% burns and ought to have gone in coma till she died and, therefore, there was no question of her to have made a statement as sought to be projected by the prosecution. It is also being argued that once Pethidine injection was administered soon after Daljit Kaur was admitted in the hospital, she could not have been able to make a statement and that too a detailed one. We are not at all impressed with the contention raised by the learned counsel. Nothing at all could be brought on records either from the cross-examination of the doctors, who were examined in this case or by way of an independent evidence that after receiving 70-90% burns, a patient necessarily goes into coma and remains in that state if he/she does not ultimately survive. Insofar as administering of Pethidine injection is concerned, it may be recalled that the same was given to the patient when she was admitted in the hospital on November 27, 1988 and on that day or night, the doctor had clearly opined that she was not in a position to make a statement. In fact, her statement was recorded on November 28, 1988 and, as mentioned above, by an independent witness, it has been established that she was in a position to make a statement on November 28, 1988. The motive attributed to the appellant is not only proved from the statement made by the deceased herself but it is further fortified by the statement made by Balbir Kaur and Sarabjit Singh, PWs 3 and 4, who were living in the same house where the appellant was residing. They were natural witnesses of the occurrence and at a time when Daljit Kaur was put to flames, their presence in the house was natural. True, to some extent they have endeavoured to support the appellant but when cross-examined, PW3 Balbir Kaur had to practically admit everything that she had stated before the police. Assuming, for the sake of arguments, that the appellant had accompanied the husband and wife to the hospital at Phagwara, even though the statement made by these witnesses does not appear to be correct, even then it would not make any dent in the prosecution version. Corroboration to the dying declaration is also forthcoming from statements of Narinder Singh and Gurmel Singh, PWs 7 and 8, who, even though related to the deceased, have given a truthful version of whatever they knew.

(2.) SOME half-hearted arguments with regard to delay in lodging the FIR and some column missing in the inquest report have been raised by learned defence counsel but, in our view, in the facts an circumstances of this case, they do not make any difference. The prosecution, as mentioned above has been able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt not only by dying declaration made by Daljit Kaur but from the corroboration, the same gets from so many witnesses.