MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant and co-accused Gyarsi were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 15/2001 (5/98) for having committed murder of Smt. Parvati. THE learned trial Judge vide judgment dated August 23, 2001 acquitted co-accused Gyarsi but convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 302 IPc To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. U/s. 498a IPc To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 500 in default to further suffer 1, 1/2 months simple imprisonment. THE sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) ON November 19, 1997 while Smt. Parvati (now deceased) was admitted in JLN Hospital Ajmer, SHO Police Station Alwar Gate Ajmer recorded her parcha bayan (Ex. P-12 ). In the Parcha Bayan Parvati stated that a day before i. e. on November 18, 1997 at 11. 00 PM her husband Madan (appellant) poured kerosine oil on her and set her ablaze. He used to demand dowry, ornaments and Scooter which could not be met therefore he decided to kill her. Nawal Kishore, her Devar (brother in law) then called a doctor to treat her in the house. Thereafter her father brought her to the Government Hospital. Parcha Bayan of Parvati was taken by constable Devendra Singh (PW. 15) and he gave it to Mahila police station at 9. 30 PM, where a case under sections 307 and 498a IPC was registered against the appellant and investigation commenced. ON November 24, 1997 Parvati succumbed to her injuries and case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer. Charges under Sections 302 and 498a IPC were framed. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) IT is trite that the truthfulness, reliability and the acceptability of the dying declaration has to be adjudged in the light of attendant facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be subjected to strict scrutiny. The court must take care of for examining the dying declaration that it is not the result of coaching, tutoring or prompting of some body. In Mohan Lal vs. State of Maharashtra (1), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that where there are more than one statements in the nature of dying declaration, one first in turn must be preferred.