Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1981 (PNJ)

Kanwal Singh v. State Of Haryana

2006-05-08

MEHTAB S.GILL, T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment 1. Appellant Kanwal Singh, Anand Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri alias Bhattar and Reena were charged on the allegations that on 10.9.2003 in furtherance of their common intention, they forcibly administered poison to Smt. Sunita Devi, who died on 11.9.2003 because of the poison so administered. Anand Singh was husband of deceased-Sunita Devi, Kanwal Singh and Bhateri alias Bhattar were her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, whereas Jaibeer and Reena were her brother-in-law (Devar) and brother-in-laws wife (Devrani). 2. At the conclusion of the trial, all the five appellants were held guilty under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 20.9.2004 and order dated 30.9.2004. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo further RI for a period of six months each. 3. Deceased-Sunita Devi was married to Anand Singh in the year 2001. No child was born from this wed-lock. On 10.9.2003 Ruqa Ex. PA prepared at 2.20 p.m. was received in Police Station Mohana from Civil Hospital, Gohana, wherein it was mentioned that Sunita w/o Anand had been referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Further that no MLR was prepared as her general condition was serious. Police was requested to take necessary action. Upon receipt of the said Ruqa, ASI Sitar Singh went to PGIMS, Rohtak where he moved application Ex. PB on 10.9.2003 seeking an opinion from the Medical Officer as to whether Smt. Sunita was fit to make a statement. On enquiry, it was found that Sunita was not admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak. Accordingly, an endorsement Ex. PC was made on 10.9.2003 at 7.30 p.m. by the hospital authorities to the effect that the Sunita was not admitted there from 2.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Said ASI came back to General Hospital, Sonepat and submitted application Ex. PD on 11.9.2003 to find out as to whether Sunita, who was admitted there was fit to make a statement. Doctor concerned gave an opinion Ex. PD/1 on 11.9.2003 at 7.30 a.m. to the effect that she was fit to make statement. After obtaining the said opinion that Smt. Sunita was fit to make statement, ASI Sitar Singh presented an application Ex. PK on the same day before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat with a request for recording the statement of Sunita Devi. PD/1 on 11.9.2003 at 7.30 a.m. to the effect that she was fit to make statement. After obtaining the said opinion that Smt. Sunita was fit to make statement, ASI Sitar Singh presented an application Ex. PK on the same day before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat with a request for recording the statement of Sunita Devi. Shri Pardeep Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate made endorsement Ex. PK/1 on the afore-mentioned application that an application had been presented before him at 9.00 a.m. at his residence for recording the statement of Sunita Devi and he was proceeding to Civil Hospital for the said purpose. On reaching Civil Hospital, Sonepat, the Chief Judicial Magistrate sought an opinion from Dr. Pushpa Punia vide Ex. PK/2 at 10.15 a.m. on 11.9.2003 as to whether patient- Sunita, who was lying on bed No. 3 in emergency ward was fit to give a statement or not. Dr. Pushpa Punia accordingly gave a certificate Ex. PK/3 at 10.25 a.m. that the patient was fit to make statement. She also mentioned that she was semi conscious but pulse was not palpable while blood pressure was unrecordable. However, it was stated that patient was fit to make statement. After obtaining the said opinion, Shri Pardeep Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded statement of Smt. Sunita Devi Ex. PK/4, wherein she stated that she got married in the year 2001. After 2/4 months of the marriage, a quarrel had taken place. Her husband, Anand Singh, administered her a tablet used for storing wheat. The tablet was given to her after mixing it with water. Her husband administered the same to her forcibly. At that time her father-in-law, mother-in-law, Devar and Devrani were present besides her husband. She again reiterated that it was her husband who administered her the tablet, whereas the others nabbed her. According to her, all of them were responsible. She further stated that her Devrani was sleeping and when her mother-in-law called her, she did not get up. When Smt. Sunita woke her up, a quarrel ensued because her Devrani was telling her that she did not wake her up earlier. On that account, the victim was administered poison. 4. After recording the said statement Ex. PK/4, Shri Pardeep Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate read it over to the victim, who accepted the same to be correct. The victim put her signatures on it in English. On that account, the victim was administered poison. 4. After recording the said statement Ex. PK/4, Shri Pardeep Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate read it over to the victim, who accepted the same to be correct. The victim put her signatures on it in English. Chief Judicial Magistrate also signed the same. A certificate Ex. PK/5, was thereafter, given by Chief Judicial Magistrate that Sunita Devi made the statement voluntarily and he recorded the same facts, which were stated by her. The statement contained true facts of her statement. Dr. Pushpa Punia, Medical Officer also gave a certificate Ex. PK/6 that during making of her statement, the victim remained fit. 5. ASI Sitar Singh, move an application Ex. PK/7 on 11.9.2003 before Chief Judicial Magistrate for handing over a copy of the statement of Sunita Devi to him for taking appropriate legal action upon the same. Accordingly, vide endorsement Ex. PK/8, Chief Judicial Magistrate supplied a carbon copy of the statement of Sunita Devi along with other papers to ASI Sitar Singh on 11.9.2003. As a perusal of the aforementioned statement of Smt. Sunita Devi showed commission of offence under Section 307/34 IPC, the said ASI made an endorsement Ex. PE/4 on 11.9.2003 at 1.40 p.m. and sent the statement along with the same to Police Station Mohana for registration of case. Accordingly, FIR (Ex. PE/5) bearing No. 50 was registered at Police Station Mohana on 11.9.2003 at 2.15 p.m. by MHC Ajit Singh. Special report was sent through C. Suresh Kumar for delivering the same to the senior officers. Learned JMIC, Sonepat received the same on 11.9.2003 at 3.50 p.m. 6. After the registration of the FIR, ASI Sitar Singh took up investigation and recorded statements of Hawa Singh and Wazir Singh in General Hospital, Sonepat. He also visited the spot. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PF of the place of occurrence. After the death of Sunita, offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the heading of the FIR. Inquest proceedings Ex. PG were conducted on the dead-body of Smt. Sunita. The investigation was, thereafter, handed over to SI Rajinder Singh, SHO Police Station, Mohana, who arrested accused Anand Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena on 17.9.2003. Anand Singh accused got recovered glass Ex. P1 vide recovery memo Ex. PJ in pursuance to disclosure statement Ex. PQ made by him. Accused Kanwal Singh was arrested on 30.10.2003. The investigation was, thereafter, handed over to SI Rajinder Singh, SHO Police Station, Mohana, who arrested accused Anand Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena on 17.9.2003. Anand Singh accused got recovered glass Ex. P1 vide recovery memo Ex. PJ in pursuance to disclosure statement Ex. PQ made by him. Accused Kanwal Singh was arrested on 30.10.2003. After the completion of the investigation, SI Rajinder Singh prepared final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and submitted it to the Court. The case was, therefore, committed to the Court of Sessions. 7. On 12.1.2004, Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat charged all the accused for forcibly administering poison to Smt. Sunita. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 8. ASI Sitar Singh PW-1 deposed about his obtaining an opinion from the doctor about the fitness of Smt. Sunita to make a statement. After getting the said opinion, he moved application to the Illaqa Magistrate for recording the statement. After he received copy of the statement of Smt. Sunita as recorded by the Magistrate, he made an endorsement and sent the same to Police Station, Mohana on the basis of which present case was registered. After the death of Smt. Sunita, he added the offence under Section 302 IPC to the heading of the FIR and conducted inquest proceedings. 9. HC Ajit Singh PW-2 scribed formal FIR after receiving Ruqa from ASI on 11.9.2003. After the death of Sunita and addition of offence under Section 302 IPC, he sent special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. He also deposed about the deposit of the case property with him on 12.9.2003 and thereafter, sending the same to Chemical Examiner, Karnal through C. Bijender Singh. 10. C. Rajesh Kumar PW-3 is the Draftsman. He proved site plan Ex. PH, which was prepared by him at the instance of Ram Karan. 11. Hawa Singh P4-4 stated that deceased Sunita was his daughter, who was married to accused Anand about three years earlier to the occurrence in question. He mentioned relationship of the other accused with his deceased daughter. He also stated that the deceased had been telling him that the accused were not happy with her and she was being harassed by the accused out of whom her husband Anand was asking her to bring a motor-cycle. He mentioned relationship of the other accused with his deceased daughter. He also stated that the deceased had been telling him that the accused were not happy with her and she was being harassed by the accused out of whom her husband Anand was asking her to bring a motor-cycle. He had assured Anand that he will make the payment for a motor-cycle within a month and he did pay Rs. 45,000/- within that period. 7/8 months later, the accused again started harassing his daughter. He was told that the accused were then demanding a car. His daughter Sunita remained at his house for about 10 months. About three months prior to the occurrence, she was sent to the matrimonial home on the intervention of the Panchayat. He further deposed that on 10.9.2003, he received a telephonic message that the accused had administered poison to his daughter. On receiving this information, he went to PGIMS, Rohtak, where he did not find his daughter. Then he came General Hospital, Sonepat, where he met his daughter, who was admitted there. Upon his inquiries, his daughter told him that when she was waking up her sister-in-law Reena, a dispute/quarrel took place. She further disclosed that the accused gave beating to her and thereafter, four of the accused, namely, Kanwal, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena caught hold of her, whereas accused Anand administered the tablets after mixing them in water. This witness further proved the recovery of glass Ex. P1 vide memo Ex. PJ at the instance of Anand accused. 12. Baljit Singh s/o Hawa Singh was examined as PW5. The deceased was his youngest sister. He also stated on same and similar lines as stated earlier by his father Hawa Singh PW-4. He also deposed about the oral dying declaration made by his sister. 13. Shri Pardeep Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat while appearing as PW-6 deposed about the steps he took before recording the statement of Smt. Sunita in General Hospital, Sonepat. After recording the statement, he supplied a copy of the same to the police. 14. C. Suresh PW-7 and C. Bijender PW-8 tendered their respective affidavits Ex. PM and PN in evidence. 15. Dr. S.P. Sharma, PW-9, who was posted in PGIMS, Rohtak conducted post- mortem examination on the dead-body of Sunita on 12.9.2003, he found that it was dead-body of female, 160 cms in length. 14. C. Suresh PW-7 and C. Bijender PW-8 tendered their respective affidavits Ex. PM and PN in evidence. 15. Dr. S.P. Sharma, PW-9, who was posted in PGIMS, Rohtak conducted post- mortem examination on the dead-body of Sunita on 12.9.2003, he found that it was dead-body of female, 160 cms in length. There was no ligature mark around the neck. Rigor mortis was present in all four limbs. She was wearing a golden nose pin, salety kameej, light bra, green printed salwar, red bangles five in each writ with two additional bangles green and blue in colour. There was white blood mixed froth coming out of the mouth and nostrils. The body was mottled. The organs like scalp, skull and other organs were healthy and congested. The stomach contained creamy brown pungent smelling fluid. Small intestine was congested and had hemorrhagic pungent fluid. The cause of death was kept pending. The viscera of the deceased was sent for chemical examination. After receiving report Ex. PL from Chemical Examiner, Haryana, which showed the presence of aluminium phosphate, the cause of death was given as aluminium phosphide consumption. Ex PO was the correct carbon copy of the post-mortem report. 16. SI Rajinder Singh PW-10 was the other Investigating Officer in the case. He arrested the accused and recovered glass Ex. P1 at the instance of Anand Singh accused. After the completion of the investigation, he presented challan against the accused. 17. Dr. (Ms.) Pushpa Punia PW-11 proved opinion Ex. PK/3, which she gave on the request made by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat vide which she declared the victim fit to make a statement. She also proved opinion Ex. PK/6 given by her that during making of her statement, the victim remained fit. 18. After tendering in evidence FSL report Ex. PL, original inquest report Ex. PM and document Ex. PN, the prosecution closed its evidence. 19. The case of the prosecution was thereafter put to the accused when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused denied the correctness of the prosecution case and pleaded false implication. All the accused further stated that the dying declaration was procured one. The specific plea of Anand Singh accused was as under : `I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I was not present in the village on the day of any such alleged occurrence. All the accused further stated that the dying declaration was procured one. The specific plea of Anand Singh accused was as under : `I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I was not present in the village on the day of any such alleged occurrence. I and my wife Sunita (since deceased) were very much in love with each other. She had no complaint of any kind against me. On hearing about the death of my wife Sunita I came to my village from Sirsa from where I along with my family members were produced before the DSP Gohana and sent to jail. The dying declaration is procured one. 20. The plea of Kanwal Singh accused is reproduced hereinbelow :- `I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Hawa Singh PW, father of the deceased Sunita out of greed to extort money. I was not present at my house on the day of alleged occurrence. I am a serving Headmaster in Govt. Primary School, Kanwarpura, distt. Sirsa, approximately 250 kilometers from V. Pinana. I have my residence at village Kotli, Distt. Sirsa. I was present in the school on duty on the day of alleged occurrence. The dying declaration is procured one. 21 Smt. Bhateri stated that Smt. Sunita had developed stomach ache with complaint of vomiting. Taking it to be a sign of pregnancy, Smt. Bhateri became happy. However, when Smt. Sunita could not recover till the next day i.e. 10.9.2003, she took her to CHC, Gohana and also informed her father Hawa Singh about her ill health. When the father of Sunita came to the hospital after 11 p.m. on 10.9.2003, Smt. Bhateri and her sister Murti were turned out of the ward. She further claimed that the dying declaration of Smt. Sunita was a procured one. In her own words, she took up the following plea in reply to question No. 19 :- `I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case at this instance of Hawa Singh PW, father of deceased Sunita out of greed to extort money and harass and humiliate my family. Actually Sunita deceased had developed stomach ache with complaint of vomiting on 9.9.2003. I was happy with the complacency (sic) taking the event as a result of her pregnancy. I have been falsely implicated in this case at this instance of Hawa Singh PW, father of deceased Sunita out of greed to extort money and harass and humiliate my family. Actually Sunita deceased had developed stomach ache with complaint of vomiting on 9.9.2003. I was happy with the complacency (sic) taking the event as a result of her pregnancy. But when Sunita could not recover till 10.9.2003, I took her to CHC Gohana on 10.9.2003 and also informed Sh. Hawa Singh PW, father of Sunita on telephone about the ill health of Sunita. Sunita was admitted in General ward in G.H. Sonepat. Till evening of 10.9.2003 Sunita was quite well, talking in complete sense and walking up and down stairs herself. She used to go to toilet herself. But after 11 p.m. on 10.9.2003 father of Sunita came to the hospital and threw me and my sister Murti out of the ward where Sunita was admitted. Father of Sunita was accompanied by his daughter Chanderwati, his sons Baljit and Ram Karan and few other people from his village. I and my sister kept awaiting in varandah for whole night. In the morning at about 8 a.m. on 11.9.2003, Hawa Singh, father, Baljit and Ram Karan brothers and Chanderwati sister of Sunita gave medicines to Sunita within our sight which was consumed by Sunita. Thereafter, Hawa Singh went some where. We also left the place. The alleged dying declaration is procured one. 22 Smt. Reena accused denied that she was present in the house on the day of the occurrence, as she had gone to her parental house situated in village Karontha. Her plea is as under:- `I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. On the day of alleged occurrence I was not present in my matrimonial house. I had gone to my parental house at village Karontha. I was married with Jaibir only three months before my arrest. I had gone to village Pinana only two times before the alleged occurrence. There was no ill will between me and my sister-in-law Sunita now deceased. The dying declaration is procured one. 23. Accused Jaibeer pleaded alibi by saying that on the day of the occurrence he was not present in the village, as he was on duty at Milk Plant, Rohtak. The plea taken by him is reproduced hereinbelow :- `I am innocent. The dying declaration is procured one. 23. Accused Jaibeer pleaded alibi by saying that on the day of the occurrence he was not present in the village, as he was on duty at Milk Plant, Rohtak. The plea taken by him is reproduced hereinbelow :- `I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. On the day of alleged occurrence I was not present at my village Pinana. I was on my duty at Milk Plant, Rohtak. As my wife had gone to the house of her father at V. Karontha I used to stay at Rohtak in our house. The dying declaration is procured one." 24. When called upon to lead evidence in defence, the accused examined Ranbir Singh DW-1, who was a teacher in Government Primary School, Kanwanpura. He deposed about the presence of Kanwal Singh accused in the school as head teacher on 10.9.2003. He proved the attendance register Ex. D-1 and office orders Ex. D-2 made by accused Kanwal Singh accused on 9.9.2003 and 10.9.2003. Balwant Singh resident of village Kotli in District Sirsa was examined as DW- 2. He stated that accused Kanwal Singh used to reside in his village from where he had been going to village Kanwarpura for teaching there in school which village was at a distance of 1-1/2 kilometers from village Kotli. Sayed Sajid Maseed DW-3 deposed about the presence of Jaibeer accused at Milk Plant, Rohtak on 10.9.2003. Dharambir Singh, Sarpanch of village Karontha, who was examined as DW-4, deposed about the presence of Reena accused in her parents house since 20/22 days prior to the present occurrence. 25. After going through the statement of the witnesses and hearing the arguments, the trial Court believed the prosecution version regarding the making of dying declaration by Smt. Sunita before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. The oral dying declarations made by the victim before her father and brother were also believed. However, the allegations of harassment and demand for motor-cycle and car by the accused as projected by Hawa Singh PW-4 and Baljit PW-5 in their testimonies were not relied upon. The pleas raised by the accused including that of alibi were rejected by the trial Court. However, the allegations of harassment and demand for motor-cycle and car by the accused as projected by Hawa Singh PW-4 and Baljit PW-5 in their testimonies were not relied upon. The pleas raised by the accused including that of alibi were rejected by the trial Court. After holding that the prosecution had proved that all the accused forcibly administered poison to Smt. Sunita on 10.9.2003, who died on 11.9.2003, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Hence, the present appeal. 26. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the State of Haryana. 27. The defence has stressed upon the fact that Smt. Sunita was not conscious at the time when Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat purported to have recorded her statement. Reference has been made to some cutting in opinion Ex. PK/3, which was admitted by Dr. Pushpa Punia PW-11. 28. Although Dr. Pushpa Punia PW-11 did make a mention that there was cutting at mark B and C in her opinion Ex. PK/3, but these cuttings were initialled by her. According to her, the word `un was written by mistake before the word `fit at mark B. Similarly the word `un before the word `conscious has been overwritten so as to make it `semi. Even this cutting was initialled by Dr. Pushpa Punia. An argument was raised that these cuttings were made by Dr. Pushpa Punia at the instance of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. This plea of the defence cannot be accepted. The Magistrate had no personal axe to grind by recording the statement of a person, who as claimed by defence, was semi conscious and unfit to make a statement. While appearing as PW-6, the Magistrate stated that he recorded the statement of the victim faithfully and correctly and without any addition or omission on his part. He also stated that after he completed the recording of the statement, he read it over to Smt. Sunita and explained the same to her. Only thereafter, Smt. Sunita appended her signatures after accepting the contents to be correct. He also stated that the victim made her statement voluntarily and throughout the period she was making a statement, she remained fit. Under these circumstances, no importance could be attached to the presence of word `un before `fit and `semi before `conscious. Only thereafter, Smt. Sunita appended her signatures after accepting the contents to be correct. He also stated that the victim made her statement voluntarily and throughout the period she was making a statement, she remained fit. Under these circumstances, no importance could be attached to the presence of word `un before `fit and `semi before `conscious. The Magistrate stated in categorical terms that the victim was conscious and fit to make a statement and further that throughout the period her statement was recorded by him, she remained fit. Even certificate Ex. PK/6 was given by the doctor that during making her statement, the victim remained fit to make the same. In such a situation it has to be taken as a fact that Smt. Sunita was fit to make a statement. She voluntarily made a statement before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, wherein she stated about the involvement of the accused in the crime. 29. Besides the aforesaid dying declaration made by Smt. Sunita before the Magistrate, she also informed her father Hawa Singh and her brother Baljit, when they reached hospital on getting the information, that accused Kanwal Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena had caught hold of her, whereas accused Anand administered her poison after mixing the same in the water. 30. The consciousness of Smt. Sunita and her fitness to make the statement on 10.9.2003 as well as on 11.9.2003 has also been admitted by Smt. Bhateri in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to her, she got Sunita admitted in General Hospital, Sonepat and till the evening of 10.9.2003, Sunita was well, talking in complete sense and walking up and down the stairs herself. So much so that she would go to the toilet herself. Smt. Bhateri further mentioned that at 11.00 p.m. on 10.9.2003, father of Sunita came to the hospital and he was accompanied by his son Baljit besides others. She kept sitting in varandah of the hospital for the entire night. On the next morning i.e. at about 8.00 a.m. on 11.9.2003, Smt. Bhateri saw the father, brothers and sister of Sunita giving some medicine to her, which was consumed by Smt. Sunita. As per this, it is clear that Smt. Bhateri claimed Sunita to be conscious as she took the medicine by herself, which were given to her by her father, brothers and sister. 31. As per this, it is clear that Smt. Bhateri claimed Sunita to be conscious as she took the medicine by herself, which were given to her by her father, brothers and sister. 31. This brings us to the question as to who out of the accused was responsible for administering poison to Smt. sunita. As per the dying declaration made by Smt. Sunita before Chief Judicial Magistrate, it was her husband Anand, who administered poison to her. About the other accused, she stated that they were present there besides her husband. She did not attribute any role to the accused other than her husband. She stated that the poisonous substance was administered to her husband. At one point of time she mentioned that other four accused were present there. During the end of her statement, she stated that other four accused nabbed her. In her statement before her father Hawa Singh PW-4 and her brother Baljit PW-5, she stated that the accused had given beatings to her and thereafter, her husband Anand administered the poisonous substance to her after mixing the same in water whereas the other four accused caught hold of her. While making her statement before the Magistrate, Smt. Sunita did not mention anywhere that she had been given beatings by the accused. Even the perusal of the post-mortem would show that there were no such signs of any beatings given to her by the accused. So much so that the bangles worn by her in each of her two wrists were also not broken. In case the accused other than Anand had nabbed her, as claimed in the dying declaration before the Magistrate or caught hold of her, as claimed in the oral dying declaration, there ought to be some injury or mark on the victim. It was not to be the case of catching/holding of the victim loosely, it had to be a case of holding of the victim in tight trips. Once the victim was held, as claimed in the dying declarations, in tight grips, it would have certainly left some mark on the body, which is surprisingly missing in the case. 32. The defence has examined Ranbir Singh DW-1 and Balwant Singh DW-2 to show the presence of Kanwal Singh in village Kotli, where he was residing and in village Kanwarpura, where he was working as a head-teacher. 32. The defence has examined Ranbir Singh DW-1 and Balwant Singh DW-2 to show the presence of Kanwal Singh in village Kotli, where he was residing and in village Kanwarpura, where he was working as a head-teacher. Attendance Register and order-book of the school have also been proved by Ranbir Singh DW-1. Similarly Jaibeer has tried to establish his plea of alibi by placing reliance on the testimony of Sayed Sajid Maseed DW-3 while Smt. Reena accused examined Dharambir Singh DW-4, who was Sarpanch of her parental village in support of her plea of being present there. The trial Court has rejected these pleas on the ground that the victim has specifically implicated the aforementioned three accused in her dying declaration. To our mind, the aforementioned three accused had been able to substantiate their pleas of being present at a place other than the place of occurrence on the date and time of the occurrence. Entries made in documents Ex. D-1 and D-2 on 10.9.2003 by Kanwal Singh showed his presence in village Kanwarpura on the day in question. Said village was situated in district Sirsa, whereas the occurrence in question had taken place in the area of district Sonepat. Jaibeer accused performed his duty in Milk Plant, Rohtak from 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 10.9.2003 as per the attendance register Ex. D-4. Dharambir Singh DW-4 was not related to Smt. Reena accused or her parental family. He was Sarpanch of village Karontha to which village father of Reena accused belonged. Only suggestion given to said Dharambir Singh DW-4 on behalf of the prosecution was that he was deposing falsely to help Reena being the daughter of his village. No material has been shown by the prosecution from which it could be inferred that said Dharambir Singh was interested in making a statement favourable to Smt. Reena accused. 33. In view of the above, this Court is faced with the situation as to whether the dying declaration could be believed in part and acted upon to sustain the guilt of one person. 34. In Godhu and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 2188 it was held that if a part of the dying declaration has not been proved to be correct, it did not necessarily result in the rejection of the whole of the dying declaration. 34. In Godhu and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 2188 it was held that if a part of the dying declaration has not been proved to be correct, it did not necessarily result in the rejection of the whole of the dying declaration. The part of the dying declaration, which is found to be trustworthy could be relied upon :- "We are also unable to subscribe to the view that if a part of the dying declaration has not been proved to be correct, it must necessarily result in the rejection of the whole of the dying declaration. The rejection of a part of the dying declaration would put the Court on the guard and induce it to apply a rule of caution. There may be cases wherein the part of the dying declaration which is not found to be correct is so indissolubly linked with the other part of the dying declaration that it is not possible to sever the two parts. In such an event the Court would well be justified in rejecting the whole of the dying declaration. There may, however, be other cases wherein the two parts of a dying declaration may be severable and the correctness of one part does not depend upon the correctness of the other part. In the last mentioned cases the Court would not normally act upon a part of the dying declaration the other part of which has not been found to be true, unless the part relied upon is corroborated in material particulars by the other evidence on record. If such other evidence shows that part of the dying declaration relied upon is correct and trustworthy, the Court can act upon that part of the dying declaration despite the fact that another part of the dying declaration has not been proved to be correct." 35. Similarly in Narain Singh and another v. State of Haryana, 2005 SCC(Criminal) 185, the Court disbelieved a part of dying declaration and acted upon the rest of the same in sustaining the finding of guilt :- "Though in law there is no bar in acting on a part of the dying declaration, it has to pass the test of reliability. Similarly in Narain Singh and another v. State of Haryana, 2005 SCC(Criminal) 185, the Court disbelieved a part of dying declaration and acted upon the rest of the same in sustaining the finding of guilt :- "Though in law there is no bar in acting on a part of the dying declaration, it has to pass the test of reliability. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible evidence and unless evidence is tested by cross-examination it is not creditworthy. A dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that solemn moment a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The shadow of impending death is by itself guarantee of the truth of the statement of the deceased regarding the circumstances leading to his death. But at the same time the dying declaration like any other evidence has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility to be acceptable. It is more so, as the accused does not get an opportunity of questioning veracity of the statement by cross- examinationy. The dying declaration if found reliable can form the base of conviction." 36. In a case where the bride either commits suicide or is murdered by her in-laws family, the tempers run high. So much so that attempt is made to rope in the entire family of the husband of the victim. Almost all the family members of the husband are attributed one role or the other so as to implicate them, although they may not have done anything in the entire occurrence. Under these circumstances, duty is cast upon the Court to sift the grain from the chaff and find out if some of the accused have been falsely roped. The facts and circumstances of the present case also point towards the false implication of accused Kanwal Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena. As has been held above, their part and participation in the occurrence was highly doubtful. Three out of them were also able to prove their respective pleas of alibi. The facts and circumstances of the present case also point towards the false implication of accused Kanwal Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena. As has been held above, their part and participation in the occurrence was highly doubtful. Three out of them were also able to prove their respective pleas of alibi. As a measure of abundant caution we extend the benefit of doubt to the four accused, namely, Kanwal Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena, while at the same time we find sufficient evidence to connect Anand Singh accused with the commission of the crime. 37. Resultantly, we set aside the conviction and sentences of Kanwal Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena appellants and they shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The conviction of Anand Singh under Section 302/149 IPC is altered to Section 302 IPC in view of Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 166 and Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR(Crl.) 548. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- along with default clause imposed upon him by the trial Court are maintained. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.