PRABHATI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sumitra who had hardly reached the age of 21 years and was recently blessed with a daughter is said to have been set ablaze by her mother-in-law Prabhati, appellant herein. As per the prosecution version, Sumitra was done to death on 4-4-2003 at 8 or 8.30 in the morning. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Phool Chand, father of the deceased on 7-4-2003 at 4.30 p.m. It is on the basis of written report made by him that formal FIR came to be entered and registered copy Against Order of Dharam Chand Jain, RHJS, Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar, D/- 25-9-2003. whereof and special report was sent to the concerned Magistrate on 8-4-2003 at 10.30 a.m. Phool Chand, narrated events leading to death of his daughter Sumitra in the written report which, when translated into English, would read as follows :

(2.) It is conceded position that appellant- Prabhati has been convicted solely on the basis of dying declaration made by Sumitra before she succumbed to burn injuries. Phool Chand, father of deceased, examined as PW-1, Mohan Lal, paternal uncle of the deceased examined as PW-2, Lal Chand husband's brother of the deceased examined as PW-3, Smt. Aanchi, mother of the deceased, examined as PW-4, Smt. Sunavanti, paternal aunt of the deceased examined as PW-5, Smt. Sampati Devi, brother's wife of the deceased examined as PW-6, Banwari and Durga Prasad, neighbours of the appellant (PW-8 and 9 respectively) and Sukhchain, cousin of deceased (PW-10) were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The sole question that arises for determination in the present case is as to whether conviction of the appellant could be sustained on dying declaration alone made by Sumitra. With a view to find an answer to the only question mooted out before this Court, the relevant facts leading to making of dying declaration by Sumitra have necessarily to be noticed. Post-mortem report (Ex. P. 15) of Sumitra would reveal that she was admitted in S. K. Hospital, Sikar at 9.45 a.m. on 4-4-2003 as a case of about 100% burns; smell of kerosene oil was present; the patient was irritable and her BP pulse was not recordable. She was ex- amined in Ward on 4-4-2003 at 10.30 p.m. In the opinion of the Board of Doctors, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sumitra, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. It was a case of 100 per cent burns caused by dry heat. Cause of death was shock due to excessive burns. Dr. J. R. Tanwar, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sumitra was examined as PW- 11. He stated that on 4-4-2003, when he was working as Medical Jurist in SK Hospital, Sikar, on the request of SDM, Sikar a Medical Board was constituted of which he was a member. He along with Dr. S. S. Sharma examined the dead body of Sumitra, aged 21 years. She was admitted in the hospital in Female Surgical Ward on 4-4-2003 at 9.45 a.m. and was declared dead on the same day at 10.30 a.m. On external examination of the dead body, it was found that eyes were closed, the mouth was open, there was swelling on the lips, the skin of the body was burnt, the dead body had superficial and deep burns and the total burn area was 100% which was due to dry heat and the dead body was having smell of kerosene. In cross-examination, the doctor stated that death of Sumitra had in fact taken place at 1.30 p.m. and not at 10.30 a.m. He also stated that the patient was able to speak in that condition. He categorically denied the suggestion that in 100% burn cases in which pulse is not recordable, the patient would not be able to speak.