- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Babu Ram And Others v. State Of Punjab .
Factual and Procedural Background
Three appellants were tried in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1987 before the Sessions Court, Bhatinda, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC arising from the burning death of Santosh Rani. The prosecution alleged that her mother-in-law (Krishna Devi) poured kerosene on her, her father-in-law (Babu Ram) threw a lighted matchstick to set her on fire, and her husband (Rajinder Kumar) attempted to bolt the door when she tried to run out; the alleged motive was dissatisfaction with dowry.
The trial court accepted the defences of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi and acquitted them, but disbelieved Rajinder Kumar’s explanation and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. On appeal, the High Court heard Rajinder Kumar’s appeal against conviction and the State’s appeal against the acquittal of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi together; by a common judgment it confirmed Rajinder Kumar’s conviction and reversed the acquittals, relying on two dying declarations made by Santosh Rani. All three convicted persons then filed the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Santosh Rani’s dying declarations were reliable, including whether she was in a fit state of mind to make them given 60% burns and an alleged morphine injection before recording.
- Whether, even if the dying declarations were accepted as true, the evidence established Rajinder Kumar’s participation in the offence so as to sustain his conviction (including with reference to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Santosh Rani could not have made a valid dying declaration because she allegedly was not in a fit state of mind, having suffered 60% burns and having been administered morphine about an hour before the dying declaration was recorded.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected the challenge to the dying declaration on the ground of incapacity, relying on categorical medical evidence that Santosh Rani was in a fit state of mind when she made her statement. The Judicial Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration stated that he had specifically enquired from the doctor about her fitness and recorded the statement only after Doctor Garg certified her fit.
The Court found no reason to doubt the genuineness of dying declaration Ex. PG/1. It also accepted the second dying declaration Ex. PH, recorded later by ASI Jagdish Singh, noting that it contained the same version and was initially recorded as an FIR and later treated as a dying declaration after Santosh Rani’s death. On that basis, the Court held the High Court was right to rely upon both dying declarations.
However, the Court analysed the contents of the dying declarations to assess each accused’s role. According to the declarations, the mother-in-law poured kerosene and the father-in-law ignited it with a matchstick. The husband’s role was limited to an attempt to bolt the door when Santosh Rani tried to exit. The Court held that even accepting the dying declarations as true, it could not be said with reasonable certainty that the husband was a party to the commission of the offence. The Court considered it plausible, on the husband’s version that he was bathing on the ground floor, that upon learning something had happened upstairs he went to the first floor and attempted to bolt the door to prevent outsiders from learning about the incident. Since nothing more was alleged against him, the Court concluded the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and held that the High Court had overlooked this aspect.
Holding and Implications
PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED: The appeal of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi was dismissed, while the appeal of Rajinder Kumar was allowed.
Rajinder Kumar was acquitted and his bail bonds were ordered to be cancelled. Babu Ram and Krishna Devi, who had been on bail during the pendency of the appeal, had their bail cancelled and were ordered to surrender to custody to serve the remaining part of their sentence.
The direct effect of the decision was to maintain the convictions of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi while setting aside Rajinder Kumar’s conviction due to insufficiency of evidence as to his participation; the opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set.
G.T Nanavati, J.— The three appellants were tried in the Court of Sessions, Bhatinda in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1987 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge against them was that Appellant 2-Krishna Devi, the mother-in-law of Santosh Rani, poured kerosene on her and Babu Ram, the father-in-law, threw a lighted matchstick on her and when Santosh Rani was trying to run out of the room, her husband — Rajinder Kumar — Appellant 3 had tried to bolt the door. It was also the prosecution case that all the three had set her on fire because they felt that sufficient dowry was not given to her by her parents.
2. The defence of appellant-Babu Ram was that he was not in the house at the relevant time as he had already left at about 8.30 a.m for the shop in which he was working. Krishna Devi's defence was that she was washing clothes in the courtyard of their house and was not present in the room on the first floor where the incident of burning had taken place. The defence of the husband was that he was taking a bath on the ground floor at that time.
3. The trial court believed the pleas of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi but disbelieved the explanation of Rajinder Kumar. It, therefore, acquitted Babu Ram and Krishna Devi but convicted Rajinder Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
4. Rajinder Kumar filed Criminal Appeal No. 389-DB of 1988 before the High Court challenging his conviction. The State also filed Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1989 challenging the acquittal of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi. Both the appeals were heard together by the High Court and by a common judgment they were disposed of. The High Court confirmed the conviction of Rajinder Kumar and also set aside the acquittal of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi as it held that both the dying declarations made by Santosh Rani were true and there was no good reason to disbelieve them.
5. Aggrieved by their conviction, all the appellants have filed this appeal. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Santosh Rani could not have made the dying declaration as she could not have been in a fit state of mind as she had received 60% burns and was given an injection of morphine about an hour before her dying declaration was recorded. However, this contention cannot be accepted in view of the categorical evidence of the doctor who has stated that she was in a fit state of mind when she made the statement. The Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration, has also stated that he had enquired from the doctor whether she was in a fit state of mind and after Doctor Garg certified her to be so and finding her fit he had recorded the statement.
6. We, therefore, see no reason to doubt the genuineness of the dying declaration Ex. PG/1. The second dying declaration Ex. PH was recorded by ASI Jagdish Singh, sometime after the dying declaration Ex. PG/1 was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. In that dying declaration also, Santosh Rani had given the same version. In fact, it was recorded as the first information report and subsequently treated as dying declaration after she had died. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was right in relying upon both the dying declarations.
7. In the two dying declarations, what Santosh Rani had stated was that her mother-in-law had poured kerosene over her and the father-in-law had thrown a lighted matchstick and set her on fire. The only part stated to have been played by the husband was that when she was trying to go out of the room, he had attempted to bolt the door so as to prevent her from going out of the house. Therefore, even though after accepting the two dying declarations as true, it cannot be said with reasonable certainty that the husband was also a party to the commission of the offence. The version of the husband was that at the time of the incident, he was taking a bath on the ground floor. It, therefore, appears that on coming to know that something had happened on the first floor, he went there and seeing her in flames, he had tried to bolt the door with a view to prevent the outsiders from coming to know about the incident. Nothing else was alleged against the husband. The evidence against the husband was thus not sufficient to warrant his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. This aspect has been overlooked by the High Court.
8. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of Babu Ram and Krishna Devi and allow the appeal of Rajinder Kumar. Appellant Rajinder Kumar is acquitted of the charge levelled against him and his bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled. Appellants Babu Ram and Krishna Devi were also released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. Their bail is cancelled and they are ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
Alert