JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) Informant Suresh Kumar Gupta lodged an FIR in police station, Ramnagar on 26.12.1992, against Mithilesh Kumar (father-in-law), Meera (sister-in-law) and Chhama Devi (mother-in-law) of the victim, which was registered as case crime no. 452 of 1992, under Section 498A of IPC. The incident was alleged to have taken place on 26.12.1992, in the early morning and the FIR was lodged on the selfsame day at 06:40 P.M. 2. According to the informant, he was the resident of Bara Bazar, Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. His sister was married to Pradeep Kumar Bansal r/o Jwala Line, Ramnagar in July 1992, according to Hindu religion and rites. On 26.12.1992, in the morning, the father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law set his sister Babita alias Anita on fire. Victim was closeted in a room and her living body was set on fire. The informant came to Ramnagar, no sooner he received the news about said incident. Informant met his sister Smt. Babita alias Anita, who told the informant that she was sleeping in her room when her father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law set her on fire. The door was bolted from outside. The accused did the gruesome act for killing Smt. Babita alias Anita. The condition of the victim was serious. She was admitted to Combined Hospital, Ramnagar. As said earlier, on the basis of the complaint of PW1, the criminal law was set into motion against the accused persons. After the investigation, a chargesheet (Ext. Ka-10) in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC was submitted against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, the charge for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Suresh Kumar (informant), PW2 Ramesh Chand, PW3 S.D.M. Harish Chand Gaur, PW4 Dr. Tika Chand Gaur (Medical Officer), PW5 Dr. G.K. Sharma, PW6 Dy.S.P. Dilip Kumar and PW7 Constable Rajendra Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. All the accused persons said that the victim committed suicide. DW1 Pradeep Kumar, DW2 Satish Kumar and DW3 Hari Shankar were examined in defence. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. All the accused persons said that the victim committed suicide. DW1 Pradeep Kumar, DW2 Satish Kumar and DW3 Hari Shankar were examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital, vide order dated 12th May 2000, convicted all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC. Each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304B of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in respect of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 12th May 2000, present criminal appeal was preferred. 3. Prosecution led the evidence through PW3 Harish Chand Gaur, Sub Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi. PW3 said in his examination-in-chief, that he was posted as S.D.M, New Delhi on 28.12.1992. On the said day, at 11:55 A.M., he recorded the dying declaration of Smt. Babita alias Anita r/o Ramnagar, District Nainital. The victim was admitted in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. Statement of the victim was recorded at bed no. 23, ward no. 2 of the said hospital. Before recording the statement of the victim, the Medical Officer certified that she was in a position to give the statement. The dying declaration was recorded in question-answer form. Signatures of the victim were also obtained on the said declaration. Statement of the victim was read over to her before requesting her to append her signatures over the same. PW3 proved dying declaration (Ext. Ka-2). PW3 also proved the death report (Ext. Ka-3) of the deceased. PW3 also took the statement of the brother of victim on 02.01.1993 and proved the same as Ext. Ka-4. PW3 also took the statements of Ramesh Chand and Suresh Kumar and proved the same as Ext. Ka-5 and Ext. Ka-6. PW3 directed the Chowki In-charge of the hospital for conducting postmortem. He also proved the summary of the proceedings (Ext. Ka-7). In the cross-examination PW3 said, among other things, that no police personnel or the relative of the victim was present when the dying declaration of the victim was recorded. 4. Ext. Ka-2 is the original of the dying declaration of Smt. Babita alias Anita. He also proved the summary of the proceedings (Ext. Ka-7). In the cross-examination PW3 said, among other things, that no police personnel or the relative of the victim was present when the dying declaration of the victim was recorded. 4. Ext. Ka-2 is the original of the dying declaration of Smt. Babita alias Anita. The Doctor certified that the patient was fit to give her statement. Victim was responding to the queries in a coherent manner. The extract of her dying declaration (Ext. Ka-2) is excerpted here-in-below, for convenience: “Question no. 1. To whom did you marry and when? Answer: I was married to Pradeep Kumar Bansal on 08.07.1992. Question no. 2. How were you set on fire? Answer: I went to relieve myself in the bathroom on 26.12.1992, at 04:00 A.M. The bathroom was situated adjacent to my room. When I came back to my room after relieving myself, my father-in-law Mithilesh Kumar Bansal, mother-in-law Smt. Chhama Devi and sister-in-law Km. Meera were standing behind the door of my room. My father-in-law was carrying a bottle of kerosene oil. As soon as I entered into my room, kerosene oil was poured over my body. The match was ignited. I was wearing sari and blouse. My body was set on fire. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law did not permit me to go out of the room. All the three pushed me on the bed. My father-in-law poured kerosene oil, ignited match and set me on fire. All the three bolted the door from outside. I could not go out of the room. I raised an alarm. The neighbours came on hearing my screams. I didn’t know who opened the door. I also didn’t know as to who attempted to douse the fire by throwing water on my body. Question no. 3. Who harasses you? Answer: I am fed up with the atrocities committed by my father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law gave me stale food. They also used abusive language and also ridiculed me. My father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law threatened me with dire consequences in the past. My husband does not harass me. Question no. 4. Does anybody demand dowry from you? Answer: My father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law continuously demand and harass me for dowry. They asked me to bring Rs. 30,000/-. My parents are poor. They can’t afford to pay so much of dowry. My husband does not harass me. Question no. 4. Does anybody demand dowry from you? Answer: My father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law continuously demand and harass me for dowry. They asked me to bring Rs. 30,000/-. My parents are poor. They can’t afford to pay so much of dowry. My husband does not demand dowry from me. The atmosphere of the family is vicious all the time, as I could not fulfill their demand of dowry. sd/- Anita Kumari @ Babita The above statement has been recorded by me in my own hand. It has been read over to Smt. Anita alias Babita and she has signed before me after admitting the statement above recorded as correct. sd/- H.C. Gaur Sub Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi. Dated: 28.12.1992” 5. The dying declaration recorded in this case inspires full confidence in its truthfulness and correctness. It has intrinsic worth and its reliability can be determined from its tenor and contents. The victim had sustained more than 65% burn injuries. In her dying declaration she has alleged that her father-in-law has poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire with a matchstick. A bride was burnt to death within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances. The dying declaration recorded in this case is free from doubt, reliable one and if the conviction is based on that dying declaration it will certainly serve the ends of justice. It is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder within the four walls of the matrimonial house of the victim. There are no embellishments. The learned Magistrate has scribbled the details of what the unfortunate lady was speaking out and then prepared the statement in question and answer form. It is in the language of the victim herself. The Magistrate did not employ his own language so as to suggest that it is tutored one. The document appears to be correct and unalloyed version of the deceased. It is not a fabricated or distorted document. It passes the test of total reliability. The necessary details, minute and material are found therein. Babita alias Anita was in a fit state to give the statement according to the doctor. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has taken the opinion of the doctor as to her fitness. Possibility of anxiety of planting the accused is totally ruled out. It is free from mysteries, conjectures and surmises. The necessary details, minute and material are found therein. Babita alias Anita was in a fit state to give the statement according to the doctor. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has taken the opinion of the doctor as to her fitness. Possibility of anxiety of planting the accused is totally ruled out. It is free from mysteries, conjectures and surmises. The dying declaration inspires full confidence to the court in its truthfulness and correctness. Dying declaration is the last statement by its maker and great caution is exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence. Neither the doctor nor the Magistrate were interested in the outcome of the case. Declaration showed the clarity of mind of the maker and there is no reason to doubt the certificate issued by a qualified doctor. The declaration is found to be absolutely coherent, cogent and inspiring confidence. There is nothing to discredit or disbelieve the said dying declaration. Before recording the dying declaration learned Magistrate had obtained doctor’s opinion about the condition of the patient. The Doctor had declared the victim fit for making the statement and hence, this is reliable piece of evidence. This Court is in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the trial court. 6. PW4 Dr. Tika Chand Gaur, Medical Officer, Combined Hospital, Ramnagar said that the victim was admitted on 26.12.1992 in his hospital at 05:30 A.M. The victim was got admitted by her father-in-law. PW4 narrated the health condition of the victim saying that she sustained 65% burn injuries. PW4 proved his report (Ext. Ka-8), which contained the thumb impression of the patient/victim. PW4 found the hair of the victim singeing and blackening of face. He found 65% burns. The patient was admitted in hospital under observation. The patient was referred to the Surgeon of Combined Medical Hospital, Ramnagar for further management and treatment. 7. PW5 Dr. G.K. Sharma, Director, Professor and Head of the Department (Medico-Legal) of Lady Harding Medical College, New Delhi, said that Dr. Alpana Sinha, Senior Resident and Dr. Sanjeev Tandon, Junior Resident conducted postmortem of the deceased under his supervision. PW5 proved postmortem report (Ext. Ka-3) and opined that the cause of death of victim was ante mortem burn injuries. PW5 also said that the burn injuries sustained by the victim were possible on 26.12.1992 at 04:30 A.M. The postmortem report was jointly signed by Dr. Sanjeev Tandon, Junior Resident conducted postmortem of the deceased under his supervision. PW5 proved postmortem report (Ext. Ka-3) and opined that the cause of death of victim was ante mortem burn injuries. PW5 also said that the burn injuries sustained by the victim were possible on 26.12.1992 at 04:30 A.M. The postmortem report was jointly signed by Dr. Alpana Sinha and Dr. Sanjeev Tandon and PW5. 8. PW1 Suresh Kumar was the informant, who in his examination-in-chief, supported prosecution story and also proved his FIR. PW1 also said that his sister came to him after two months’ of her marriage with Pradeep Kumar Bansal. She said that her father-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law made a demand of Rs. 20,000/- in dowry. They were dissatisfied with the dowry given in her marriage. They harassed the victim and tortured her on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. PW1 gave Rs. 10,000/-. The victim again asked for Rs. 15,000/- after a month and said that her in-laws were demanding more dowry. PW1 again gave Rs. 5,000/-, but that too did not satisfy the lust of her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. On 26.12.1992, PW1 received the news at 11:00 A.M. that his sister was set on fire. When PW1 went to his sister’s matrimonial home, he was informed that his sister was admitted in Ramnagar Hospital. Her condition was critical, but she was in conscious state of mind. Victim told PW1 that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law poured kerosene oil at her and set her on fire. PW1 proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1), as also his statement given to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 9. PW2 Ramesh Chand was another brother of the victim, who, in his examination-in-chief, supported prosecution story and said that his sister was harassed by her mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law for want of bringing sufficient dowry. PW2 also went to see his sister in Ramnagar Hospital. The victim was taken to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, in the intervening night of 26th / 27th December 1992. The Sub Divisional Magistrate also recorded the statement of PW2. His sister breathed her last on 01.01.1993. 10. PW6 Dy.S.P. Dilip Kumar said that initially investigation of the case was assigned to S.I. K.C. Joshi because the FIR was registered under Section 498A of IPC. The Sub Divisional Magistrate also recorded the statement of PW2. His sister breathed her last on 01.01.1993. 10. PW6 Dy.S.P. Dilip Kumar said that initially investigation of the case was assigned to S.I. K.C. Joshi because the FIR was registered under Section 498A of IPC. After the death of the victim, Section 304B of IPC 10 was also included and therefore, the investigation was assigned to PW6, who after conducting investigation, submitted cargesheet (Ext. Ka-10) against the accused persons. PW7 Constable Rajendra Singh of police station, Ramnagar proved the handwriting of S.I. K.C. Joshi, who prepared the site plan. PW7 also proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-11) and entry of the same in the G.D. (Ext. Ka-12). 11. DW1 Pradeep Kumar, DW2 Satish Kumar and DW3 Hari Shankar were examined on behalf of the defence. DW1 proved two letters written by the victim to her father. In the said letters, the victim has sought the guidance with regard to her participation in a function, which was to be held on 16.08.1992. The second letter reflects the tension prevailing in between the two families. Learned trial court has appropriately dealt with the defence witnesses and rightly came to the conclusion that the evidence tendered by DW1, DW2 and DW3 could not make inroads into the prosecution story, which was proved against the accused persons/ appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 11(A) There is no contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Minor discrepancies here and there do not matter in such cases. 11(B) Taking an overall view of perspective of the evidence, it is a case in which the veracity of prosecution witnesses and dying declaration cannot be doubted. 11(C) The oral testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as the dying declaration recorded by an independent Sub Divisional Magistrate transpires that dying declaration is not the result of tutoring and is free and voluntarily one. 12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants placed reliance on the cases of Mohan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana, (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 94; Shanti and another vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 557 and State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay, 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 231. The facts of the instant case are different from these cases referred to above, and therefore, the appellants cannot be given any benefit of these rulings. 13. The facts of the instant case are different from these cases referred to above, and therefore, the appellants cannot be given any benefit of these rulings. 13. Learned court below has discussed the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses in great detail. Each and every aspect of the prosecution story and the prosecution evidence was taken care of. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Naintial. No interference is thus called for in the impugned judgment. 14. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused persons/appellants in respect of offences punishable under Section 304B and 498-A of IPC are affirmed. Accused persons / appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They are directed to surrender forthwith before the court concerned to serve out the sentences awarded by the trial court against them. 15. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the court below for ensuring compliance.