Delhi District Court
State vs . Krishan Kumar on 29 August, 2018
           IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, ADDL.SESSIONS
          JUDGE02 (EAST) SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) KARKARDOOMA 
                           COURTS, DELHI

                                                                              SC No. 387/16
                                                                              FIR No.113/11
                                                                           U/s 498A/302 IPC
                                                                                 PS Gazipur
In the matter of:­

State           vs.      Krishan Kumar
                         S/o Late Sh. Bal Kishan
                         R/o H.No.A­141, Harizan Basti,
                         Kondli, Delhi

        Date of institution            :  08.08.2013
        Date of argument               :  14.08.2018
        Date of order                  :  29.08.2018       


JUDGMENT

PROSECUTION CASE

1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:­

(a) That on 11.04.2011 at 12.40 hours, duty constable Sanjeev informed at PS Gazipur from LBS Hospital that one Poonam w/o Krishan has been admitted in the said hospital due to drinking of acid. The said informtion was   reduced   into   DD   No.41A   and   it   was   marked   to   SI   Harpal. Thereafter,   IO   SI   Harpal   reached   LBS   Hospital,   collected   MLC No.5254/22 of Poonam who was reported to be conscious. Thereafter, IO   informed   SDM   Preet   Vihar.   Sh.   Hukam   Singh,   SDM   Preet   Vihar reached LBS Hospital, and recorded her statement (Ex.PW2/A) in which she stated that she got married to accused on 28.11.2005 and dowry FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            1 of 20 was given as per their wishes but no vehicle was given due to which accused   used   to   quarrel   with   her   on   daily   basis   and   also   used   to threaten to kill her brother. Accused used to quarrel with her after taking liquor. He was not giving money to meet out the house hold expenses. She has a son who has not been enrolled in any school by the accused. Accused used to get her threatened  through  outsiders. Accused also used   to   send   her   to   her   parents’   home   after   giving   beatings   to   her. Accused used to threaten her to go away from his house otherwise she would   be   killed.   That   on   11.04.2011   at   about   12.30   hours,   accused administered acid to her and ran away. She further stated that accused is responsible for this incident and she wants legal action against him.

(b) Thereafter, statement of complainant was marked to SHO PS Gazipur for necessary action. On the basis complainant’s statement, an FIR was registered u/s 498A/328 IPC against the accused and investigation was marked to SI Harpal  Singh. On 04.05.2011, accused was arrested in this case and he was granted bail on 23.06.2011. Poonam continuously remained   ill.   On   07.06.2011,   IO   obtained   MLC   in   which   doctor   has opined   that   it   is   a   case   of   corrosive   poisioning   with   complaint   of dysphogia and gastritis.

(c) That victim Poonam also got medical treatment from LNJP Hospital for some   time   and   on   24.09.2011   vide   MLC   Death   Summary   CR No.962304, she was reported to have expired on 23.09.2011 at 5.45 pm. Since IO SI Harpal had retired, therefore, another police official, ASI Bhagwat Dayal reached  LNJP hospital, got conducted postmortem  of deceased  Poonam.   Sh.  DS   Pundeer,  SDM  Preet  Vihar   also  reached FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            2 of 20 LNJP   Hospital   and   prepared   the   inquest   paper.   Thereafter,   section 498A/302   IPC   were   also   added   in   the   FIR   and   accused   was   again arrested on 28.04.2013. After completion of investigation charge­sheet was filed.

(d)After compliance of the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the sessions court.

(e)Vide order dt.16.01.2014, a charge for the offence punishable u/s 498A and 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

FACT IN ISSUE

2. Points which emerged for determination in this case are:­ “Whether   accused   subjected   the   deceased   Poonam   to   cruelty   and harassment   for   dowry   and   forcefully   administered   acid   to   her   and consequent to the consumption of acid she died on 24.09.2011.”

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

3. In order to establish accusations against the accused, the prosecution has examined following 14 witnesses.

(3.1) ASI Jai Prakash (PW­1) is the Duty Officer who recorded the FIR in the   present   case   and   brought   on   record   copy   of   FIR   Ex.PW1/A   and endorsement Ex.PW1/B made on rukka.

(3.2) Sh. Hemant Kumar (PW2) is the brother of the deceased.  This witness   deposed  that  on   28.11.2005   her   sister  (deceased)  got  married with   accused   and   in   marriage,   they   had   given   house   old   articles   and ornaments  according   to  their  status.   After  about   one   year  of   marriage, FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            3 of 20 accused demanded gaddi (motorcycle) from them as well as deceased and when they could not fulfill the said demand, accused gave beatings to his sister. Accused made demand of motorcycle on many occasions and gave beatings to deceased. PW2 also deposed that accused used to give beatings to deceased after consuming liquor and he and his mother tried to   make   the   accused   understand   for   not   giving   beatings   to   deceased. PW2 further  deposed   that  on 11.04.2011,  when  he was  present  at  his house, sister­in­law (bhabhi) of accused came to his house and informed him that Poonam had consumed Tezab upon which he made a call at 100 number. PW2 further deposed that he along with his mother and brother went to LBS hospital where his sister was found admitted and SDM was recording her statement (Ex.PW2/A) at that time. He also deposed that on inquiry Poonam told him that “tumhare jija ne mujhe zabardasti tezab pila diya aur waha se bhaag gai te”.

(3.3) Sh. Lalit Kumar (PW3) is the younger brother of deceased. This witness deposed more or less on the similiar lines of PW2. PW3 further deposed   that   on   11.04.2011   he   was   in   his   office   and   his   sister­in­law Parvesh   Kumari   informed   him   about   the   incident   telephonically. Thereafter, he went to LBS Hospital where his statement was recorded by the IO. He immediately went to the house of accused but no one was found and then he went to school where his mother was working and  he informed   his   mother   about   the   incident.   Thereafter,   he   along   with   his mother rushed to LBS hospital where deceased was found admitted. PW3 further deposed that the doctor at LBS Hospital referred Poonam to LNJP Hospital and her sister expired in the hospital on 23.09.2011. He identified FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            4 of 20 dead   body   of   deceased   vide   identification   statement   Ex.PW3/A   and received the dead body of deceased after postmortem vide handing over memo Ex.PW3/B.

(3.4) Smt. Kanti Devi (PW4) is the mother of deceased.  This witness has   deposed   more   or   less   on   the   lines   of   PW2   and   PW3.   PW4   also deposed that when she reached hospital Poonam was not able to talk at that time and after some time she talked to Poonam who informed that accused had forcibly made her to consume tezab.

(3.5)   Smt.   Manju   (PW5)   is   the   sister­in­law   of   the   deceased.  This witness deposed that on 11.04.2011 at about 12 noon, she was present at the ground floor of her home and Yash, son of Poonam came to her and informed her that his mother Poonam has consumed tezab. Then PW5 went to first floor and saw that Poonam was in pain and Poonam told her that   she   was   having   problem   in   her   stomach.   Thereafter,   she   took Poonam to LBS hospital and got her admitted there.

(3.6)   Retired   SI   Harpal   Singh   (PW6)   is   the   1st  IO   of   the   case,   who conducted initial investigation of the present case and after his retirement he   handed   over   the   case   file   to   MHCR   on   30.06.2011.   PW6   deposed more less on the lines of 1st paragraph of the judgment and for the sake of brevity his testimony is not being disccused here.

(3.7) SI Bhagwat Dayal (PW7) is the 2nd IO. This witness deposed that on 01.09.2011 further investigation of this case was marked to him and on 24.09.2011 an information was received that Poonam had expired. The said   information   was   reduced   into   DD   No.8A   (Ex.PW7/A)   and   it   was FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            5 of 20 marked to him and thereafter, he conducted further investigation of the case.

(3.8)   Retired   Inspector   Ramdhan   Singh   (PW8)   is   the   last   IO  who arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW8/B, recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/C, concluded   the   investigation,   prepared   the   challan   and   filed   it   before   the Court.

(3.9)   Sh.   Hukam   Singh   (PW9)   is   the   then   SDM  who   recorded   the statement of deceased. He brought on record the statement of deceased as Ex.PW2/A and direction Ex.PW9/A given to SHO for taking necessary action.

(3.10)   PW10   is   Dr.   Rakesh   Singh  who   proved   the   MLC   No.5254/11 Ex.PW10/A prepared by Dr. PD Singh.

(3.11)   PW11   is   Dr.   Mohit   Chauhan  who   has   placed   on   record   the postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.PW11/A) conducted by Dr. Jyoti Barua and Dr. Jatin Bodwal and opined that the casue of her death was septicemia consequent upon peritonitis.

(3.12)   PW12   is   Ct.   Yogesh  who   joined   the   investigation   and accompanied PW9 Inspector Ramdhan Singh and assisted IO in arresting the accused and got conducted medical examination of accused.

(3.13)   PW13   is   Dr.   Niranjan   Kansakar.  This   witness   has   brought   on record the death summary report of deceased as Ex.PW13/A prepared by Dr. Gaurav Garg and stated that the cause of death in this case was post operative  case of corrosive  stricture  oesophagus  (laprotmy  with colonic FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            6 of 20 interposition­transhiatal  with  tracheastomy  with  feeding  jejunostmy)  with Pneumonitis with anastomotic leak with septicemia.

(3.14) PW14 is Dr. A.K. Kakar. This witness deposed that on 25.06.2011 patient Poonam was referred to LNJP hospital from LBS Hospital. Initially she was admitted with the alleged history of ingestion of corrosive/acid in April 2011. Her first operation was conducted on 01.05.2011. Thereafter, she was discharged on 08.05.2011 and she was again admitted at LNJP Hospital on 25.06.2011 for treatment of corrosive stricture of esophagus with feeding jejunostomys. She was taken up for surgery on 05.09.2011 and   colonic   transposition   and   colopharyngeal   and   gastrocolic   and colocolic with tracheostomy was carried out. PW14 further deposed that the   patient   Poonam   developed   post   operative   pneumonitis   with anastomoticleak.   She   developed   septicemia   and   passed   away   on 23.09.2011. The patient remained under his treatment from 25.06.2011 to 23.09.2011   in   LNJP   Hospital.   PW14   also   deposed   that   the   stricture   of esophagus in patient Poonam occurred due to ingestion of acid.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

4. On   conclusion   of   prosecution   evidence,   statement   of   accused   was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. His marriage with deceased was solemnized   in   simple   manner.   He   never   harassed   or   gave   beatings   to deceased   nor   demanded   any   gaddi/vehicle   from   her   or   her   family member. PW2, PW4 and his/her family member deposed falsely against him. He was not present on spot at the time of incident. Later on he came to know that Poonam had consumed acid/tezab and she was admitted to FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            7 of 20 hospital   by   his   sister   Smt.   Manju.   He   himself   surrendered   before   the police   at   PS   and   he   did   not   give   any   disclosure   statement   and   his signatures were obtained on blank paper forcibly. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.

5. I have heard Ld. Addl. P.P for the State as well as Ld. defence counsel and gone through the record of the case. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the complainant has given a specific statement to the SDM that accused had forcefully made her drink the acid. The incident took place within seven years of marriage of the accused with the deceased. The complainant has specifically stated in her statement that her husband used to quarrel with her on daily basis after taking liquor and used to beat her and harass her on account of non­fulfillment of dowry ie gaddi. Ld. Addl. PP further stated that the testimony of deceased has been corroborated by her relatives i.e. PW2 Hemant Kumar, PW3 Lalit Kumar, both brothers of deceased and PW4 Smt. Kanti Devi, the mother of deceased. It is further argued that initially deceased got treatement from LBS Hospital and thereafter, she was referred to LNJP Hospital where her first operation was conducted on 01.05.2011   and   thereafter,   she   was   discharged   on   08.05.2011. Thereafter, she was again admitted at LNJP Hospital on 25.06.2011 for treatment of corrosive stricture of esophagus with feeding jejunostomys and remained under treatement till 23.09.2011. She developed septicemia and passed away on 23.09.2011 and as per statement of PW14 Dr. A.K. Kakar, the structure of  esophagus in deceased occurred due to ingestion of acid. It was the accused who forcibly made the deceased to consume acid which resulted into all these problems and consequent upon which FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            8 of 20 she   died.   Thus,   it   is   prayed   that   accused   may   be   convicted   for   the offences charged with.

6. Ld counsel for accused submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case   against   the   accused.   Ld   defence   counsel   submitted   that   the prosecution case is based upon the dying declaration and same is not reliable as same is inconsistent with the medical evidence. He submits that   as   per   deceased   she   was   forcefully   given   acid   by   the   accused, however, there is no evidence that she sufferred any injury on her face or any  part  of  her  body.  In this  regard  he  has  relied upon   the case  laws reported as (i) 1975 CRI L.J. 1500 Ram Narain vs State of Punjab (ii) 1997   CRI   L.J.   310   Ananda   Manna   vs   State   of   W.B.   and   (iii)   1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1242 Mani Ram and Ors vs Sate of UP. Healso submits that allegations regarding demand of motorcycle are general and vague and neither complainant nor witnesses have given any specific particulars about the date and time of demand. He also submits that there has not been any complaint in the past. Thus, he submits that accused may be acquitted.

LEGAL POSITION

7. Before dealing with the contentions relating to dying declaration raised by the  Ld.  counsels  for  both  the  sides, it  is  deemed  appropriate   to firstly, discuss the settled legal proposition in this regard.

8. In the case of  Krishan v. State of Haryana reported as 2013(3) SCC 280, the Hon’ble Apex Court while discussing the case of   Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1958 SC 22 has summarized the law FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            9 of 20 relating to the admissibility of dying declaration. In this case. Hon’ble Apex Court   has   held   that   the   dying   declaration   can   be   relied   upon   without corroboration but same should be true and correct. The relevant paras of this judgment are reproduced as under:­

14.   We   are   not   able   to   see   any   contradiction   in   these   two judgments of this Court. The three­Judge Bench judgment in the case   of   Khushal   Rao   (supra)   had   stated   the   principle   in paragraphs 16 and 17, which reads as under :

“……16. On a review of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and of the decided cases in the different High Courts in India and in this Court, we have come to the conclusion, in agreement with   the   opinion   of   the   Full   Bench   of   the   Madras   High   Court, aforesaid, (1) that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law   that   a   dying   declaration   cannot   form   the   sole   basis   of conviction unless it is corroborated; (2) that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; (3) that it cannot be laid down   as   a   general   proposition   that   a   dying   declaration   is   a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; (4) that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence   and   has   to   be   judged   in   the   light   of   surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; (5) that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent magistrate in the proper manner, that is to   say,   in   the   form   of   questions   and   answers,   and,   as   far   as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on   a   much   higher   footing   than   a   dying   declaration   which depends   upon   oral   testimony   which   may   suffer   from   all   the infirmities of human memory and human character, and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to   keep   in   view,   the   circumstances   like   the   opportunity   of   the dying   man   for   observation,   for   example,   whether   there   was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had not been impaired   at   the   time   he   was   making   the   statement,   by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            10 of 20 a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties.”

17.   Hence,   in   order   to   pass   the   test   of   reliability,   a   dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the   statement   by   cross­examination.   But   once,   the   court   has come   to   the   conclusion   that   the   dying   declaration   was   the truthful   version   as   to   the   circumstances   of   the   death   and   the assailants   of   the   victim,   there   is   no   question   of   further corroboration. If, on the other hand, the court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects, and testing its veracity, has come to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that   it   suffers   from   an   infirmity,   then,   without   corroboration   it cannot  form  the   basis   of a   conviction.  Thus,  the  necessity   for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration   as   a   piece   of   evidence,   as   held   in   some   of   the reported cases, but from the fact that the court, in a given case, has come to the conclusion that that particular dying declaration was not free from the infirmities referred to above or from such other infirmities as may be disclosed in evidence in that case.”

9. After considering the principle laid in Khushal Rao’s case (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 15 to 18 as under:­  “15.   A   bare   reading   of   the   above   paragraphs   shows   that   the Court opined that it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law   that   a   dying   declaration   cannot   form   the   sole   basis   of conviction unless it is corroborated. The Bench further clarified that where the dying declaration is true and correct, the attendant circumstances show it to be reliable and it has been recorded in accordance with law, the deceased made the dying declaration of her   own   accord   and   upon   due   certification   by   the   doctor   with regard   to   the   state   of   mind   and   body,   then   it   may   not   be necessary for the court to look for corroboration. In such cases, the dying declaration alone can form the basis for the conviction of the accused. But where the dying declaration itself is attended by   suspicious   circumstances,   has   not   been   recorded   in FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            11 of 20 accordance with law and settled procedures and practices, then, it may be necessary for the court to look for corroboration of the same.

16.  In   the   case   of   Ram   Sagar   Yadav   (supra),   this   Court   had followed the same principle and, in turn, specifically referred to the judgment of Khushal Rao (supra). Not only this, even in the case of Munnu Raja and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 3 SCC 104, this Court referred to the judgment in Khushal Rao’s case (supra). In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Court stated the same principle that where the dying declaration suffers from an infirmity,   the   Courts   will   have   to   adopt   a   different   course   to adjudicate   the   matter   in   accordance   with   law.   In   the   case   of Ramilaben Hasmukhbhai Khristi v. State of Gujarat (2002) 7 SCC 56, this Court held as under:

“28. Under the law, dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, if it is free from any kind of doubt and it has been recorded in the manner as provided under the law. It may not be necessary to look for corroboration of the dying declaration. As envisaged, a dying declaration is generally to be recorded by an Executive   Magistrate   with   the   certificate   of   a   medical   doctor about the mental fitness of the declarant to make the statement. It may be in the form of question and answer and the answers be written in the words of the person making the declaration. But the   court   cannot   be   too   technical   and   in   substance   if   it   feels convinced about the trustworthiness of the statement which may inspire confidence such a dying declaration can be acted upon without any corroboration.”

10. Same view has been taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases reported as Bhajju @ Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327 and Hiraman v. State of Maharashtra 2013(12) SCC 586.

11. In the case of Chirra Shivraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 14 SCC 444,   Hon’ble   Apex   Court   has   held   that   court   has   to   examine   dying declaration with a microscopic eye to find out whether it was voluntarily and truthful.

FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            12 of 20

12. In   the case of Tapinder Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1970 Supreme Court   1566,   it   has   been   held   that   the  dying   declaration   has   to   be subjected to very close scrutiny as accused does not get chance to test the veracity of the statement of the witness by way of cross examination. Same  view   has  been   taken  by  the   Hon’ble  Supreme   Court  in  State  of Gujrat vs Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu 2016 CRI LJ 4185. Relevant para is

10. In this very case, in para no.11, it has been held that Court has also to see the attendant circumstances to assess the truthfulness of the dying declaration.

10. The courts below have to be extremely careful when they deal with a dying declaration as the maker thereof is not available for the   cross­examination   which   poses   a   great   difficulty   to   the accused person. A mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous. The court   has   to   examine   a   dying   declaration   scrupulously   with   a microscopic   eye   to   find   out   whether   the   dying   declaration   is voluntary,   truthful,   made   in   a   conscious   state   of   mind   and without   being   influenced   by   the   relatives   present   or   by   the investigating  agency   who   may   be   interested  in   the   success   of investigation   or   which   may   be   negligent   while   recording   the dying   declaration.   In   the   case   on   hand,   there   are   two   sets   of evidence,   one   is   the   statement/declaration   made   before   the police officer and the Executive Magistrate and the other is the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her father who   was   examined   as   PW­1.   On   a   careful   scrutiny   of   the materials   on   record,   it   cannot   be   said   that   there   were contradictions in the statements made before the police officer and   the   Executive   Magistrate   as   to   the   role   of   the   respondent herein   in   the   commission   of   the   offence   and   in   such circumstances, one set of evidence which is more consistent and reliable,   which   in   the   present   case   being   one   in   favour   of   the respondent herein, requires to be accepted and conviction could not be placed on the sole testimony of PW­1. A number of times the relatives influence the investigating agency and bring about a FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            13 of 20 dying   declaration.   The   dying   declarations   recorded   by   the investigating   agencies   have   to   be   very   scrupulously   examined and   the   court   must   remain   alive   to   all   the   attendant circumstances at the time when the dying declaration comes into being. In case of more than one dying declaration, the intrinsic contradictions   in   those   dying   declarations   are   extremely important. It cannot be that a dying declaration which supports the prosecution alone can be accepted while the other innocent dying   declarations   have   to   be   rejected.   Such   a   trend   will   be extremely   dangerous.   However,   the   courts   below   are   fully entitled to act on the dying declarations and make them the basis of conviction,  where the  dying  declarations  pass all the  above tests.

11. The court has to weigh all the attendant circumstances and come to the independent finding whether the dying declaration was properly recorded and whether it was voluntary and truthful. Once   the   court   is   convinced   that   the   dying   declaration   is   so recorded,   it   may   be   acted   upon   and   can   be   made   a   basis   of conviction. The courts must bear in mind that each criminal trial is an individual aspect. It may differ from the other trials in some or the other respect and, therefore, a mechanical approach to the law of dying declaration has to be shunned.

13. From  the above  referred  legal  position,  it clearly  emerges  that a dying declaration   can  form  the   sole  basis  of  conviction  but   when  such  dying declaration is true and reliable.

14. The   present   case   is   solely   based   upon   the   statement   made   by   the deceased   when   she  was   admitted  in  the  hospital  after   consumption  of acid. The deceased was admitted in the hospital on 11.04.11 and since then   she   remained   under   constant   treatment   for   the   complication   got developed due to ingestion of acid. She was operated twice in the LNJP Hospital.   Second   time   she   was   operated   upon   dt.   5.09.11   and   after operation   she   developed   septicaemia   and   passed   away   on   23.09.11.

FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            14 of 20 Thus, it is clear from the medical evidence available on record that the deceased   succumb   to   the   complications   which   were   developed   due   to ingestion of acid. Thus, deceased passed away due to ingestion of acid.

15. On dt. 11.04.11, the injured Poonam had given a statement to the SDM concerned upon which present case was registered u/s 498A and 328 IPC and  after  her  demise  Sec  302 IPC  was  added.  The  present  case  was registered on the first statement of deceased and after her demise same is to be treated as her dying declaration. As per her statement, accused had forcefully administered her acid and then fled away. Thus, deceased has indicted the accused for forcefully giving acid to her.

16. The   present   case   is   based   upon   the   dying   declaration   made   by   the deceased. Thus, before relying upon the dying declaration Ex.PW­2/A it is to be seen whether the same is trustworthy or not and for this purpose it is to be seen whether it matches with the attending circumstances or not .

17. As per deceased she was forcefully given acid by the accused. In order to prove the allegation against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW­5 Smt. Manju, the sister in law of the accused. As per prosecution case, PW­5 was present on the ground floor of the house and on the date of incident, at about 12 noon, Yash, the son of the deceased had come to her   and   told   her   that   her   mother/deceased   had   consumed   tezab whereupon she went to first floor and found deceased in pain and then she got her admitted in LBS Hospital. Thus, as per prosecution witness, the  deceased  had herself  consumed  the acid and  this information  was given   to   her   by   the   son   of   the   deceased   immediately   after   she   had FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            15 of 20 consumed the tezab/acid. During cross examination PW5 deposed that at the time of incident the accused was not present at home and on that day he had left the house at about 10.30am. This witness is material witness as   at   the   time   of   incident,   she   was   present   at   home   and   she   got   the deceased admitted in the LBS hospital and had also informed the family members of the deceased about the incident. The family members of the deceased have been examined as PW2, PW3 and PW4 and PW3 and PW4 who are the brothers of the deceased also stated that they were informed by PW5 that deceased had consumed Tezab. Thus, it is clear that PW5 is a natural witness to the incident and deposed what she was informed by the son of the deceased. This witness was neither declared a hostile witness nor was cross examined on any aspect of her deposition. If the testimony of PW5 is believed then two versions of the incident are available on record, one given by the deceased herself and another one by   PW5   and   therefore,   under   these   circumstances   the   veracity   of   the statement of deceased becomes highly doubtful and thus, now same is to be tested with other relevant circumstances.

18. As per PW5, at the time of incident, the son of the deceased namely Yash was present with her mother/deceased, however, the IO neither recorded his   statement   nor   mentioned   any   reason   for   non   recording   of   his statement.   This   inaction   on   the   part   of   the   IO   creates   doubt   over   the prosecution case as son of the deceased was the most material witness and must have been cited as a witness to the incident as at the time of incident,   he   was   the   only   person   present   with   the   deceased,   thus,   an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution that he was FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            16 of 20 not   joined   investigation   and   cited   as   witness   as   he   would   not   have supported the prosecution case and would have deposed in terms of the deposition of PW5.

19. Furthermore, the dying declaration should also match with the attending circumstances.   As   per   deceased   she   was   forcefully   given   acid   by   her husband, if it was so, she must have made some resistance and in  that process some drops of acid must spill around her body especially her face and neck and consequently there to deceased would suffer some external injury on her face and neck, however, it is clear from the MLC Ex. PW10/A that at the time of her admission in the hospital  there was no external injury   present   over   her   face   or   other   parts   of   the   body.   In   his   cross examination, PW9 Sh. Hukam Singh the then SDM also deposed that he recorded statement of deceased at about 4.45 pm and there was no injury mark on the face of the victim when he recorded her statement. Thus, it is clear   from   the   medical   evidence   available   on   record   that   there   are   no signs   of   forceful   administration   of   acid   and   all   these   facts   and circumstances indicate that it is the case of self consumption of acid by the deceased as deposed by PW5.

20. Furthermore,  it is well settled law that when the prosecution evidence is inconsistence with the medical evidence then under these circumstances, the   prosecution   evidence   is   not   reliable   and   accused   is   entitled   to acquittal. In the instant case also, the deceased alleged in her statement that she was forcefully given acid and in case the acid would have been forcefully given the deceased would have sufferred some injuries on her face and other party of her body, therefore, under these circumstances, FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            17 of 20 the   statement   of   deceased   is   not   reliable   regarding   the   allegation   of forceful administration of acid as the same is inconsistent with the medical evidence available on record. Thus, under these circumstances, it is to be held   that   the   dying   declaration   is   not   trustworthy   and   therefore,   same cannot be relied upon.

21. Besides,   the   allegations   of   Sec   302   IPC,   the   accused   is   also   facing charges u/s 498A IPC. In the dying declaration deceased has also stated that the accused used to quarrel with her after consuming liquor and also used to demand motorcycle and beat her. Admittedly, the deceased had got married to the accused in the year 2005 and incident occurred in 2011 and  deceased  and accused remained  together  for about six years and during this period, no complaint was ever made either by the deceased or her family members to the police regarding dowry demand or harassment. The   allegations   regarding   harassment   and   demand   of   motorcycle   are general   and   vague   and   no   particulars   regarding   the   demand   or harassment on account of demand have been specified. Furthermore, the statement of the deceased has not been found trustworthy regarding the main allegation of administration of acid, thus, under these circumstances, the allegations regarding harassment on account of demand of motorcycle cannot be relied upon especially in the absence of any complaint and as the same are without specific particulars.

22. In   the   case   of  Vipin   Jaiswal   Vs   State   of   A.P.   2013(3)   SCC   684  the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the allegations of cruelty have to be specific. The relevant para of this judgment reads as under:­ FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            18 of 20 “In   any   case,   to   hold   an   accused   guilty   of   both   the   offences under   Sections   304B   and   498A,   Indian   Penal   Code,   the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the   deceased   was   subjected   to   cruelty   or   harassment   by   the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular  PW1  and PW4, we  find  that they  have  made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought in evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased.”

23. The allegations in the present case are not specific and lack necessary particulars,   thus,   same   are   not   reliable.   As   per   prosecution   case,   the accused used to demand vehicle and on that account he used to give beatings  to the  deceased.  The  allegations  leveled  against  the  accused appears to be of general nature.  The complainant has no where deposed in his statemen or evidence specific date, time or any particulars of such demand of dowry. None of the public witnesses have disclosed specific date   and   time   to   when   accused   demanded   aforesaid   car   and   gave beatings to deceased.

CONCLUSION

24. Keeping in view of these facts and circumstances, it is held that the dying declaration made by the deceased is not trustworthy and there is no other incriminating evidence available on record regarding allegation of forceful administration of acid. Since, the dying declaration is not trustworthy thus, the allegations qua the harassment on account of demand of motorcycle also reliable especially when these allegations are not supported by any previous complaint and are without material particulars. Thus, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove the accusation against the accused FIR No.113/2011     State vs Krishan Kumar PS Gazipur            19 of 20 beyond   reasonable   doubt   hence   accused   is   acquitted   of   the   charges leveled   with.   Acqitted   accused   is   directed  to   furnish   bonds   u/s   437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.20,000/­. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

                                                                              Digitally signed
                                                               AJAY           by AJAY GUPTA
                                                                              Location: Delhi
                                                               GUPTA          Date: 2018.08.29
                                                                              16:24:26 +0530

                                                              (Ajay Gupta)   
                                                       ASJ­02/ Special Judge(NDPS)  
                                                             KKD/East/Delhi   
Announced in open 
court on 29.08.2018




      FIR No.113/2011          State vs Krishan Kumar        PS Gazipur               20 of 20

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s