CRL.A.--725/2001. Case: MANPAL SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF DELHI. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.A.--725/2001 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | August 18, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: August 01, 2017 % Judgment Delivered on: August 18, 2017
+ CRL.A.725/2001
MANPAL SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr.Laxman Singh & Mr.Ajay
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants Manpal Singh and Mangla Devi are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Manisha who are aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th July, 2001 and the order on sentence dated 18th July 2001 in Sessions Case No.177/1999 whereby they have been convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. In Sessions Case No.177/1999 (FIR No.306/1999, u/s 498-A/302/304-B IPC), along with the appellants herein namely Manpal
Singh and Mangla Devi, Jai Prakash-husband of the deceased Manisha also faced trial. Vide the impugned judgment, Jai Prakash had been found guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Jai Prakash – husband of the deceased Manisha has already been released from jail after undergoing the sentence awarded to him.
3. Jai Prakash – husband of the deceased has not challenged his conviction and sentence by filing any appeal, nor the State has filed any appeal challenging his acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.
4. The brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants may be summarized as follows:
(i) On 15th June, 1999 at about 5:50 AM PW-8 Ct.Budh Ram who was on duty on PCR man Eagle 32 received information that one woman was lying in burnt condition near Holey Chowk at STD Booth. The PCR immediately reached the spot, picked up the burnt woman and got her admitted in Safdurjung Hospital. The information was also sent to the local police station, PS Sangam Vihar vide DD No.20/A. PW-14 ASI C.D. Upadhay along with Ct.Dharam Vir Singh reached the spot where he came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital by PCR van. ASI C.D.Upadhyay reached the place of occurrence i.e. K-11/1159, Sangam Vihar where the house was lying open with traces of burning present there but the occupants of the house were missing. ASI C.D.Upadhyay borrowed a
lock from the neighbouring house and locked the room to keep the crime scene intact and left Ct.Dharam Vir Singh to guard the spot.
(ii) On reaching the hospital ASI PW-14 obtained the MLC of the injured Manisha and sought the opinion of the doctor about the condition of the injured as to whether she was fit to make statement. The doctor opined the patient to be fit to give statement. The SDM was informed telephonically to reach the Safdurjung Hospital who reached by 10:30 AM. The statement of the injured Manisha was recorded in question-answer form on the basis of which Ex.PW12/A was registered. The family of the injured was informed through wireless transmission (WT) message at their native place in Etah, U.P. PW-14 ASI C.D.Upadhyay – investigating officer was transferred and thereafter the further investigation was conducted by PW-9 SI Lehna Singh. The injured Manisha expired on 21st June, 1999 and the body was sent for post-mortem. The FIR No.306/1999 which was registered under Section 307 IPC, was converted into Section 302 IPC. After recording the statement of the father and brother of the deceased to the effect that that there was a demand of `1 lakh as dowry by the husband and in-laws, they were arrested in this case. After the completion of investigation, all the three accused were chargesheeted for committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A/302/34 IPC.
(iii) On the basis of the material placed on record by the prosecution, all the accused persons were charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC. Appellants Manpal Singh and Mangla Devi were also charged for committing the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative, under Section 304-B IPC.
(iv) During trial 14 witnesses were examined and statement of all the accused persons was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The appellants have examined three witnesses namely DW-1 Smt. Chandrawati – neighbour, DW-2 Sh.Ram Prasad – relative and DW-3 Sh.Pramod Kumar – relative in their defence.
(v) Learned Trial Court convicted the husband for committing offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as in the dying declaration Ex.PW10/B deceased Manisha has stated that sometimes her husband used to beat her for money.
5. The father-in-law and the mother-in-law who have been convicted under Section 304-B IPC by the learned Trial Court for the following reasons:
(i) Dying declaration of Manisha was recorded by the SDM PW-10 Sh.A.Nedunchezhiyan in question-answer format. She has specifically stated that the father-in-law poured the kerosene oil and the mother-in-law lit the match box.
(ii) The testimony given by SDM PW-10 is worth believing and credit worthy as he had no enmity with the accused persons and that at the time of recording of the statement none from the family of Manisha was present in the hospital.
(iii) All the ingredients necessary to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC stand satisfied.
(iv) The defence witnesses examined to take the plea of alibi by father-in-law Manpal Singh are found to be untrustworthy.
6. On behalf of the appellants Mr.Laxman Singh, Advocate has submitted that the appellants are innocent and falsely implicated in this case by the deceased who was not having cordial relations with her in-laws. Her dying declaration could not have been made the basis for conviction due to the long time gap between when she was declared fit for making statement and when her statement was actually recorded. By the time her dying declaration was recorded she was under the influence of sedatives.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased Manisha was admitted in the hospital with about 70-75% burns all over the body and in that condition it was just not possible to make a detailed statement/dying declaration.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that there is also discrepancy in the alleged history given by the deceased before the doctor who prepared the MLC and in the statement recorded by the SDM PW-10. While in the MLC the alleged history has been recorded as under:
‘Alleged h/o kerosene oil being poured over her and being set fire by her husband and both in-laws while she was sleeping at about 4.00 am at their residence in Sangam Vihar.’
9. In the dying declaration Ex.PW10/B recorded by the SDM, the deceased has excluded her husband and implicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial