Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 426 (JK)

Bir Singh v. State of Jammu and kashmir

2022-08-31

RAJESH SEKHRI, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGEMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2005 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in File No. 59/Sessions titled “State versus Bir Singh & Ors.” by virtue of which the learned trial court has convicted the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 302/498-A/149 RPC and have been sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- each, for commission of offence under section 302/149RPC and imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for commission of offences under Sections 498-A/149 RPC. 2. The appellants have impugned the judgment dated 14.02.2005 primarily on the ground that the dying declaration made by the deceased before the Police was shrouded with mystery and was doubtful and further that there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, those have been ignored by the learned trial court. It is also stated that none of the witnesses deposed anything about the appellant No. 2 (husband of the deceased), who had suffered 20% burns while saving his wife i.e. the deceased, but the learned trial court has not considered this vital aspect of the case. In nutshell, the contention of the appellants is that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence. Contentions of Appellants: 3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel along with Mr. S. K. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased-Sita Devi was manipulated by the Police in connivance with the parents and brothers of the deceased and in fact, the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to make any dying declaration, as she had suffered 100% burns. They further argued that even there is no evidence with regard to the fact that the deceased was treated with cruelty and further there are material contradictions between the statements of the mother, brothers and sister-in-law of the deceased, but the learned trial court has not appreciated the same. It was also urged that no independent witness has been associated by the Investigating Officer to show that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the appellants and only interested and related witnesses have been associated with the investigation and they only have deposed against the appellants. Mr. It was also urged that no independent witness has been associated by the Investigating Officer to show that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the appellants and only interested and related witnesses have been associated with the investigation and they only have deposed against the appellants. Mr. Sethi submitted that the appellant No. 1, Bir Singh has already passed away. Mr. S. K. Anand has produced the medical certificate of appellant No. 3 (mother-in-law) to demonstrate that she is suffering from old age ailments. Contentions of respondent: 4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG vehemently argued that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded after the Medical Officer found the deceased to be in a fit condition to make a statement and further that the dying declaration has been attested by the Doctor. He strenuously argued that the deceased was killed only after 4/5 months of her marriage and there was sufficient evidence before the learned trial court for convicting the appellants. He also urged that the contention of the appellant No. 2 that he suffered 20% burns while saving his wife is mis-conceived, as he could have stopped his mother and sisters from burning the deceased and further that after the deceased was burnt, he did not take his inured wife straightway to Hospital but to the residence of her parents, which reflects that the appellant No.2 was no less guilty than other appellants. Mr. Gupta has produced the death certificate of appellant No. 1, Bir Singh, which shows that the appellant No. 1 expired on 10.01.2022. 5. Heard and perused the record. Case of Prosecution: 6. The prosecution story as it emerges from the charge-sheet is that the statement of the deceased-Sita Devi was recorded by ASI-Babu Ram along with Head Constable-Gushu Ram and was produced in the Police Station on 16.06.1998. The deceased had stated that she got married with Balwinder Singh-appellant No. 2, 4/5 months ago. After sometime of marriage, her in-laws started taunting her and also started beating her without any cause. They used to taunt her on small issues such as she has not prepared the right food and sometimes they used to say that she has not cleaned the utensils properly. Today, in the morning, all the accused persons quarrelled with her and thereafter went for work. They used to taunt her on small issues such as she has not prepared the right food and sometimes they used to say that she has not cleaned the utensils properly. Today, in the morning, all the accused persons quarrelled with her and thereafter went for work. After coming back at about 4.15 P.M., accused-Babli Chowdhary and Neelam Chowdhary caught hold of her in presence of all the family members and started abusing and beating her. In the meantime, her mother-in-law (Pichi) brought a gallon of kerosene oil. While both the sisters-in-law caught hold of her, her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and then brought a match stick. The other family members were shouting that she be killed today and thereafter, the mother-in-law ignited the fire with the match stick. She ran outside towards a tub of water, but by that time her whole body was burnt. She has been brought to Hospital by her husband. She is in full senses. The statement was read over to her and she acknowledged the same to be correct. The said statement was attested by the Dr. Uttam Singh, Chief Medical Officer, Government Medical College, Jammu. On receipt of this statement, FIR for commission of offence under Sections 307/34 RPC was registered. The investigation was handed over to Harvinder Singh-Sub Inspector, who proceeded on spot and prepared the site plan and also got the photography done. The gallon that was having the smell of kerosene oil, burnt part of the sofa set and coconut husk were seized on spot. Accused-Bir Singh and Shakuntla Devi were arrested on the same day and Babli Chowdhary was arrested on 17.06.1998. On 19.06.1998, Sita Devi succumbed to the injuries and thereafter the offence was converted from 307 RPC to 302 RPC. Thereafter, the post mortem of the dead body was conducted and further evidence was collected including the recording of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. FSL report was also obtained. Appellant No. 2 was arrested on 30.06.1998 after completion of his treatment. Accused-Neelam Chowdhary could not be arrested and was proceeded against under section 512 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proved the offences under Section 302/34 RPC against all the accused persons. Appellant No. 2 was arrested on 30.06.1998 after completion of his treatment. Accused-Neelam Chowdhary could not be arrested and was proceeded against under section 512 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proved the offences under Section 302/34 RPC against all the accused persons. The charge-sheet was produced before the Court and the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.02.1999 framed the charges for commission of offences under Section 302, 149, 498-A RPC against the appellants. Out of 24 witnesses, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. Prosecution evidence: 7. In order to appreciate the rival contention of the parties, it is necessary to have brief resume of the relevant portion of the prosecution evidence. 8. PW3-Rakesh Kumar: He was cited as an eye witness, but he did not support the prosecution during the course of trial and as such, he was declared hostile. Nothing incriminating could be extracted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor against the appellants. 9. PW-5 Sham Lal stated that on 16.06.1998 while he had gone to Nanak Nagar, he came to know that Sita Devi was burnt by her in-laws. The Police seized the burnt part of Sofa set and also the plastic gallon on 16.06.1998. He proved the seizure memo of plastic gallon (EXPW-SL) and also proved the seizure memo regarding the seizure of parts of the burnt Sofa set and coconut husk (EXPW-SL/1). He also proved the receipt of dead body (EXPW-SL/2) and supurdnama of ring used as seal (EXPW-SL/3). 10. PW-6 Romesh Kumar stated that he had gone to Trikuta Nagar and the Police had come to the residence of the accused in Trikuta Nagar. He also went there and the Police seized one gallon, burnt coconut husk and he signed the paper. He identified his signatures on EXPW-SL and EXPW-SL/2. In cross-examination, he stated that the time was 6.45 P.M. 11. PW-7, Sat Pal (Brother of the deceased) stated that the deceased was his sister and was married to Balwinder Singh 4/5 months ago. She used to come once or twice in a month to her paternal home. She used to tell them that her in-laws have to purchase a shop and for that purpose they require Rs. 50,000/-. She was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. She was harassed on this aspect and was also beaten. They did not give Rs. She used to come once or twice in a month to her paternal home. She used to tell them that her in-laws have to purchase a shop and for that purpose they require Rs. 50,000/-. She was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. She was harassed on this aspect and was also beaten. They did not give Rs. 50,000/- because they were not in a position to give the same. Once Bir Singh-appellant No.1 (now deceased) came to their dairy and demanded Rs. 50,000/-. He was also there. His father refused to pay the same because they had to purchase the cattle feed for dairy. On 15.06.1998, Sita Devi along with her husband came to their house. They took their meals there and the deceased told him that the accused are now harassing her more and their intention does not seem to be good and perhaps some incident may happen to her, as such, she wanted to have a separate room to be taken for her and husband. She was consoled and sent back to her matrimonial home. Next day they came to know that after reaching her matrimonial home, the accused abused her and the same was narrated to them by the deceased in the Hospital. She was abused and beaten by her sisters-in-law and her husband and because of this reason, she was burnt. Occurrence took place on 16th day of June, 1998 and on the same day, Balwinder Singh brought the deceased in an auto to their home and in the same auto she was sent to Jammu Hospital. In the Hospital, the deceased told him that she was sitting on Sofa and both her sisters-in-law caught her arms and her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil upon her and burnt her. As a result of which she died. The police had seized marriage card vide seizure memo EXPW-SP/1. In cross-examination, he stated that after sometime of the marriage, the quarrels started taking place and 15 days prior to the occurrence, all the accused persons had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her and she was threatened that if she did not bring the same, she would be killed. They had not made any report to the Police. When Balwinder Singh brought her, there were signs of burns on her body and there were few burns at the neck and arms. 50,000/- from her and she was threatened that if she did not bring the same, she would be killed. They had not made any report to the Police. When Balwinder Singh brought her, there were signs of burns on her body and there were few burns at the neck and arms. Her face was burnt and there was swelling on her eyes and they were closed. Her clothes were also burnt. One day prior to the occurrence, when the deceased and her husband had come to their house, she in presence of Balwinder Singh told them that she requires one separate room for her and her husband. 12. PW8-Rachpal Singh (Brother of the deceased) stated that the deceased was his sister and was married to Balwinder Singh on 23.01.1998. Sita Devi remained in her matrimonial home for five months and during that period, she used to come to her paternal home and used to tell them that her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law quarrel with her on petty matters that she does not perform household work and also does not prepare meals properly. She also used to tell them that her husband used to beat her in drunken condition. He had also gone couple of times to their home in this regard. When he enquired from Balwinder Singh, he apologised. The deceased also told that accused were demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her for a shop. One month prior to the occurrence, the appellant No. 1 (now deceased) came to their dairy and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from them but they could not pay the same and thereafter on 15.06.1998, Balwinder Singh along with Sita Devi came to their house. Sita Devi asked them to get one room on rent for her and he replied that they would do as per the desire of elder brother. Thereafter both of them went away. Next day, they came to know that Sita Devi was burnt. Balwinder Singh brought her in an auto to their home. His elder brother accompanied them to the Hospital. She remained in Hospital for three days and died on 19.06.1998. On enquiry, Sita Devi told him in the Hospital that she was sitting on Sofa and her both sisters-in-law caught hold of her and her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil upon her and she was burnt. In cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded in the Police Station. She remained in Hospital for three days and died on 19.06.1998. On enquiry, Sita Devi told him in the Hospital that she was sitting on Sofa and her both sisters-in-law caught hold of her and her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil upon her and she was burnt. In cross-examination, he stated that his statement was recorded in the Police Station. When Balwinder Singh brought Sita Devi to their home, she was completely burnt and her clothes were also burnt. Two months after marriage, the quarrels started. When Sita Devi came to their house, she informed them that the intentions of the accused are not right. They had not made any report to the Police regarding that. Balwinder Singh was also in the Hospital and he was also burnt but he does not know how he was burnt. The deceased was conscious and told him that her in-laws had burnt her. Her eyes were swollen but still she could see little bit. 13. PW-9, Dhano Devi (Mother of the deceased) stated that Sita Devi was her daughter and she was married with Balwinder Singh five months prior to her death. She expressed ignorance about the cause of her death. She remained alright in her matrimonial home for 1-2 months. Whenever she used to come to her paternal home, she used to tell them that her in-laws taunt her on petty matters. She used to console her that everything would be alright with the passage of time. Once the appellant No. 1 (now deceased) came to their house and he was served with tea and he demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her husband. Her husband told her that he replied to him that as and when he would get the money, he would pay the same to him. But the money was not paid. Thereafter, they started harassing Sita Devi. She was asked to either bring Rs. 50,000/- or handover her jewellery to them. She had complained about her harassment by her sisters-in-law and parents-in-law. She had also stated that her husband also used to beat her. After one month of her last visit to their home, she died because of burns. Balwinder Singh had brought her to their home in an auto and she was taken to hospital in the same auto. She had complained about her harassment by her sisters-in-law and parents-in-law. She had also stated that her husband also used to beat her. After one month of her last visit to their home, she died because of burns. Balwinder Singh had brought her to their home in an auto and she was taken to hospital in the same auto. She used to talk in Hospital and she told her that she was burnt by her sisters-in-law and mother-in-law in presence of her husband and father-in-law. During cross-examination, she stated that jewellery which was given to the deceased was with her in-laws but she does not know in whose possession it was. She admitted her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the deceased had kept her jewellery in a locker and as the money and jewellery were not given to them, this occurrence took place. This is correct that jewellery and dowry articles were with deceased and her in-laws. Locker means that the deceased had kept the jewellery in almirah. Balwinder cried and stated that she had died and he ran away. Balwinder was also in the other ward of the Hospital. When she went to the deceased in the Hospital, she told her that her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law have burnt her and she did not disclose anything about her husband and father-in-law. 14. PW-10 Santosh Kumari (Wife of brother of the deceased) stated that the deceased was his sister-in-law and she was married with Balwinder Singh. Sita Devi remained in her matrimonial home for five months. She used to come to her paternal home and tell them that she was harassed for petty matters such as that she does not cook good meals and tea. Her sisters-in-law used to run small beauty parlour and had obtained a shop on rent for that beauty parlour. The appellant No. 1(now deceased) came to his father-in-law and demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of the said shop. Her father-in-law did not pay the said amount, as he did not have the money. Thereafter, she was harassed more and her husband brought Sita Devi in an auto in burnt condition to their home, wherefrom she was shifted to the Hospital. In cross-examination, she stated that the deceased used to come to her paternal home and used to say that her in-laws harass her. Thereafter, she was harassed more and her husband brought Sita Devi in an auto in burnt condition to their home, wherefrom she was shifted to the Hospital. In cross-examination, she stated that the deceased used to come to her paternal home and used to say that her in-laws harass her. The appellant No. 1 had not demanded the money in her presence. Earlier the shop was taken on rent and the same shop was to be purchased. She had gone to the Hospital that day and she had seen Balwinder Singh over there in burnt condition. Sita Devi told her that her mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, her husband and father-in-law were at home. Both the sisters-in-law caught her and her mother-in-law burnt her and further that Balwinder Singh doused the fire. 15. PW 11-Mela Ram (father of the deceased) stated that the deceased was his daughter and was married with Balwinder Singh. He came to know that a few days after marriage, Sita Devi was separated by her in-laws. He does not know the reason for the same. After few days of marriage, the appellant No. 1 (now deceased) came to him and demanded Rs. 4,000/-. He gave the same to him and thereafter on next day he again came to his dairy and stated that his daughters has to purchase one shop and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him. He expressed his inability to pay the same because he had to purchase the animal feed. The appellant No. 1-Bir Singh got annoyed and went away. Thereafter, he went to Punjab to purchase animal feed and when he came back, he came to know that his daughter has been admitted in the Hospital. He came to know that Sita Devi had been burnt. He went to the Hospital at Bakshi Nagar, Jammu and found Sita Devi in burnt condition. When he reached there, she cried a lot, but she did not say anything to him. Jewellery was given to him on his superdnama (EXPW-TL). He expressed ignorance as to whether the deceased was harassed or not in her matrimonial home. In cross-examination, he stated that he does not know after how many days the deceased was separated by her in-laws, as this matter is generally known to women folk. He was told by his family members that she was separated by her in-laws. He expressed ignorance as to whether the deceased was harassed or not in her matrimonial home. In cross-examination, he stated that he does not know after how many days the deceased was separated by her in-laws, as this matter is generally known to women folk. He was told by his family members that she was separated by her in-laws. His daughter never told him that she was harassed by her in-laws. 16. PW13-Tarsem Lal stated that the dowry items were seized by the Police in his presence and the same were in burnt condition. Those articles were handed over to Mela Ram. He proved the superdnama (EXPW-TL). 17. PW-14 Kuldip Raj stated that in his presence the Police had seized the marriage card of the deceased and Balwinder Singh. Seizure memo (EXPW-SP) was prepared. 18. PW-15 Romesh Chander stated that he solemnised the marriage of the deceased with Balwinder Singh. 19. PW-16 Dr. Uttam Singh stated that in June 1998, he was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Govt. Medical College, Jammu. One burn case of Sita Devi had arrived in emergency ward and his duty was in the same ward. Through the medium of a docket, he was asked as to whether the deceased was fit to make statement or not. After examining the injured, he mentioned on the docket that the injured was fit to make statement. He identified his writings on the docket and the same was marked as EXPW-US. The Police had recorded the statement of Sita Devi in his presence and he attested the same. Attestation is in his hand writing and the same is true and the said statement was given in his presence. The same was exhibited as EXPW-US/1. In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was in a fit condition to make statement and in his presence she had made the statement. He does not remember as to how much she was burnt. He also does not remember whether her mouth was burnt or not, but she had made the statement in his presence to the Police. She had not made the statement by signs. 20. PW-17 Gushu Ram-Head Constable stated that in June 1998 he was posted at Police Station Gandhi Nagar as Investigating Officer. He also does not remember whether her mouth was burnt or not, but she had made the statement in his presence to the Police. She had not made the statement by signs. 20. PW-17 Gushu Ram-Head Constable stated that in June 1998 he was posted at Police Station Gandhi Nagar as Investigating Officer. Information was received from Hospital that one lady namely Sita Devi W/o Balwinder Singh has been admitted in burnt condition in Hospital and her statement was to be recorded. He along with Babu Ram went to the Hospital and by docket sought the opinion from Doctor as to whether the deceased was fit to make statement or not. The Doctor had opined that she was in a fit condition. He has seen the writing of the Doctor (EXPW-US). Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the deceased and the Doctor was also present there at the time of recording the statement. He has seen the statement in the file. This is the same as was written and prepared by him and has been attested by the Doctor and the signature of the deceased is also on the said statement. Contents are true. It was marked at EXPW-GR. In cross-examination, he stated that information was received at Police Station at about 5.00 P.M. Injured was completely burnt but she was conscious. He could not say as to whether the deceased was to survive or not. He had recorded the dying declaration of the injured. He had also enquired from the injured as to whether she was in a position to make statement and she had made the statement while being conscious. 21. PW-18 Harcharan Singh: He identified photographs clicked by him at the instance of the Police but he does not know as to who was the owner of the house. The photographs were marked as Mark-HS to Mark-HS/7. 22. PW-20, Dr. Annayat Ullah Sheikh stated that he was posted as Professor, Govt. Medical College, Jammu. He conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 19.06.1998 at about 5.00 P.M. The deceased was brought by the Sub-Inspector-Harvinder Singh of Police Station Gandhi Nagar with the history of burns. The body was identified by Sat Pal and Yash Pal-brothers of the deceased. He made the following observations after examining the dead body:- “Superficial burns all over face, neck, chest, abdomen, back and on both lower limbs. The body was identified by Sat Pal and Yash Pal-brothers of the deceased. He made the following observations after examining the dead body:- “Superficial burns all over face, neck, chest, abdomen, back and on both lower limbs. The skin was peeled off at places and there was blackening present on the unpeeled areas. About 100% of the body was found to be burnt. Internally the Viscera was found to be congested and there was evidence of inhaled smoke particles into the respiratory track. Uterus was globular, containing a foetus of about 9 cm long, having died in uterus. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock, toxaemia by burns by the flame.” In cross examination, he stated that the condition of the patient bearing 100% burns is critical. Level of consciousness varies from patient to patient. However, the patient under such circumstances is in-variably in shock and consciousness is blurred. There were superficial burns on the face of the deceased and her eyes were swollen. 23. PW-22, Harvinder Singh stated that he was handed over the investigation of the case and he proceeded on spot and prepared the site plan (EXPW-HS). He had seized one gallon and burnt clothes from the spot vide seizure memo (EXPW-SL), the burnt parts of Sofa Set (EXPW-SL-2). Statements of witnesses were also recorded. The injured died on 19.06.1998. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted and the seized items were also sent to FSL for examination. Thereafter he was transferred and rest of the investigation was undertaken by the Sub-Inspector-Babu Ram. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen any resident of Mohalla, who was an eye-witness to the incident. 24. PW-23 Babu Ram stated that he had partly investigated FIR for commission of offence under Sections 302/34 RPC. He had prepared the injury report i.e. (EXPW-BR). He also seized the marriage card of the deceased and the appellant No. 2 vide seizure memo (EXPW-SP). He had also seized the dowry articles vide seizure memo (EXPW-BR/1) and handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased vide supurdnama (EXPW-TL). The list is marked as Mark-BR. He proved the offence under Sections 302/34 RPC and produced the charge-sheet. During cross-examination, he stated that he was handed over the investigation on 23.06.1998. He was aware about the case prior to the handing over of the investigation to him. The list is marked as Mark-BR. He proved the offence under Sections 302/34 RPC and produced the charge-sheet. During cross-examination, he stated that he was handed over the investigation on 23.06.1998. He was aware about the case prior to the handing over of the investigation to him. When the injured was in the Hospital, he along with Gushu Ram recorded the statement of the injured and on the basis of that statement, FIR was registered for commission of offences under Sections 307/498-A RPC. They had obtained affirmation from the Doctor that the injured was fit to make statement. The mouth of the deceased was burnt. When her statement was recorded, Gushu Ram, SGC and Doctor were present in the ward. Some other persons were also there and relatives of the deceased were also present there but he does not know the names of those persons. 25. Appellants also led defence evidence. A brief resume of the defence evidence led by the appellants is as under: 26. DW-Sewa Ram stated that five years ago, in the month of June, he went to the house of the appellants and they were very disturbed. The wife of Balwinder Singh was burnt and she was taken to Hospital. In the meantime, her parents also came to the hospital and she was unconscious and she was not able to speak and move. He further stated that he does not go daily to the house of the accused and by chance he went to their house that day. 27. DW-Chaman Lal stated that he is an auto driver and he went to the house of the accused. There was lot of noise. He told the same to the girls who started crying and asked him to take them to their home. He dropped the girls and came back. Names of those girls were Babli Chowdhary and Neelam Chowdhary. 28. DW-Krishan Lal stated that he is neighbour of the accused and he heard noise and went on spot and found that the wife of Balwinder Singh had been burnt. Balwinder Singh was also there who took her to the Hospital. She was not in a position to speak and her whole body as well as her clothes were burnt. 29. DW-Vijay Kumar stated that the relationship between the accused and their daughter-in-law was very good. Balwinder Singh was also there who took her to the Hospital. She was not in a position to speak and her whole body as well as her clothes were burnt. 29. DW-Vijay Kumar stated that the relationship between the accused and their daughter-in-law was very good. After hearing noise, he went to the house of the accused and found that Balwinder Singh had taken his wife in his hands and her whole body was burnt and she was taken to Hospital by Balwinder Singh. Appreciation: 30. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants relied mainly upon the dying declaration (EXPW-GR) of deceased Sita Devi as it was stated by her that she was married to Balwinder Singh. Immediately after marriage, her in laws started maltreating her on trivial domestic issues. All the accused used to beat her. On 16.06.1998, all the accused quarrelled with her and thereafter they left. At about 4:15 PM, on their return, Neelam and Babli caught hold of her in presence of all family members and started abusing her. Accused Pichee (mother in law) brought a gallon of kerosene oil and sprinkled oil on her. She also brought a match box and other accused asked her to finish her (deceased). Then she lit the match stick and burnt her. She ran outside towards a tub of water but by that time, she was completely burnt. She has been brought to hospital by her husband. She is in her senses and the statement has been read over to her and is correct. The said statement has been signed by the deceased. The main contention of appellants is that the deceased who was having 100% burns could not have made any such statement as alleged by the prosecution. In view of the fact that eye witness, PW-3 Rakesh Kumar has not supported the prosecution case and another eye witness namely PW-2 Bir Singh was not produced by the prosecution, we are left with only the dying declaration of the deceased wherein the deceased has narrated the occurrence. It is settled law that the conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of dying declaration and there is no need of corroborative evidence provided the dying declaration is voluntary. It is settled law that the conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of dying declaration and there is no need of corroborative evidence provided the dying declaration is voluntary. In “Ramesh v. State of Haryana”, (2017) 1 SCC 529 , Apex Court relied upon the dying declaration made by the injured who was having 100% burns and held as under:- “31. Law on the admissibility of the dying declarations is well settled. In Jai Karan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (1999) 8 SCC 161 ] , this Court explained that a dying declaration is admissible in evidence on the principle of necessity and can form the basis of conviction if it is found to be reliable. In order that a dying declaration may form the sole basis for conviction without the need for independent corroboration it must be shown that the person making it had the opportunity of identifying the person implicated and is thoroughly reliable and free from blemish. If, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the maker of the statement was in a fit state of mind and had voluntarily made the statement on the basis of personal knowledge without being influenced by others and the court on strict scrutiny finds it to be reliable, there is no rule of law or even of prudence that such a reliable piece of evidence cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. A dying declaration is an independent piece of evidence like any other piece of evidence, neither extra strong or weak, and can be acted upon without corroboration if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable. There is no hard-and-fast rule of universal application as to whether percentage of burns suffered is determinative factor to affect credibility of dying declaration and improbability of its recording. Much depends upon the nature of the burn, part of the body affected by the burn, impact of the burn on the faculties to think and convey the idea or facts coming to mind and other relevant factors. Percentage of burns alone would not determine the probability or otherwise of making dying declaration. Physical state or injuries on the declarant do not by themselves become determinative of mental fitness of the declarant to make the statement (see Rambai v. State of Chhattisgarh [ (2002) 8 SCC 83 ]). 32. Percentage of burns alone would not determine the probability or otherwise of making dying declaration. Physical state or injuries on the declarant do not by themselves become determinative of mental fitness of the declarant to make the statement (see Rambai v. State of Chhattisgarh [ (2002) 8 SCC 83 ]). 32. It is immaterial to whom the declaration is made. The declaration may be made to a Magistrate, to a police officer, a public servant or a private person. It may be made before the doctor; indeed, he would be the best person to opine about the fitness of the dying man to make the statement, and to record the statement, where he found that life was fast ebbing out of the dying man and there was no time to call the police or the Magistrate. In such a situation the doctor would be justified, rather duty-bound, to record the dying declaration of the dying man. At the same time, it also needs to be emphasised that in the instant case, dying declaration is recorded by a competent Magistrate who was having no animus with the accused persons. As held in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 552 : AIR 1958 SC 22 : 1958 Cri LJ 106] , this kind of dying declaration would stand on a much higher footing. After all, a competent Magistrate has no axe to grind against the person named in the dying declaration of the victim and in the absence of circumstances showing anything to the contrary, he should not be disbelieved by the court (see Vikas v. State of Maharashtra [ (2008) 2 SCC 516 ]). 33. No doubt, the victim has been brought with 100% burn injuries. Notwithstanding, the doctor found that she was in a conscious state of mind and was competent to give her statement. Thus, the Magistrate had taken due precautions and, in fact, the medical officer remained present when the dying declaration was being recorded. Therefore, this dying declaration cannot be discarded merely going by the extent of burns with which she was suffering, particularly, when the defence has not been able to elicit anything from the cross-examination of the doctor that her mental faculties had totally impaired rendering her incapable of giving a statement. 31. Therefore, this dying declaration cannot be discarded merely going by the extent of burns with which she was suffering, particularly, when the defence has not been able to elicit anything from the cross-examination of the doctor that her mental faculties had totally impaired rendering her incapable of giving a statement. 31. In “Purshottam Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi)”, (2020) 11 SCC 489 , the Apex Court has held as under:- “21. For what has been noticed hereinabove, some of the principles relating to recording of dying declaration and its admissibility and reliability could be usefully summed up as under: 21.1. A dying declaration could be the sole basis of conviction even without corroboration, if it inspires confidence of the court. 21.2. The court should be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement; and that it was a voluntary statement, which was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. 21.3. Where a dying declaration is suspicious or is suffering from any infirmity such as want of fit state of mind of the declarant or of like nature, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. 21.4. When the eyewitnesses affirm that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the statement, the medical opinion cannot prevail. 21.5. The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but the person recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the statement. 21.6. Although presence of a Magistrate is not absolutely necessary for recording of a dying declaration but to ensure authenticity and credibility, it is expected that a Magistrate be requested to record such dying declaration and/or attestation be obtained from other persons present at the time of recording the dying declaration. 21.7. As regards a burns case, the percentage and degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility of dying declaration; and the decisive factor would be the quality of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to make the statement. 21.8. 21.7. As regards a burns case, the percentage and degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility of dying declaration; and the decisive factor would be the quality of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to make the statement. 21.8. If after careful scrutiny, the court finds the statement placed as dying declaration to be voluntary and also finds it coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration.” 32. What is discernible from the law laid down by the Apex Court is that in burn cases percentage and degree of burns cannot by itself affect the credibility of the dying declaration and the only considerations are voluntariness as well as fitness & conscious state of mind of declarant. 33. Now, we will examine as to whether the dying declaration stated to have been made by Sita Devi qualifies the tests as mentioned above. It is evident from the evidence brought on record that the statement (dying declaration) of deceased Sita Devi was recorded on 16.06.1998 by PW-17 Gushu Ram, after PW-16 Dr. Uttam Singh made an endorsement ‘Pt fit for statement’on the docket written to CMO, Govt. Medical College, Jammu by Police, so as to determine as to whether Sita Devi (deceased) was fit to make statement or not. PW-16 Dr. Uttam Singh in his deposition has categorically stated that he made endorsement EXPW-US after examining her and when he found that the deceased was fit for making statement. He has also attested the dying declaration of the deceased ExPW-GR and attestation was exhibited as EXPW-US/1. The perusal of his statement further reveals that at the time when Sita Devi made statement, he was present on spot. PW-17 Gushu Ram recorded the dying declaration of the deceased after obtaining the certificate from Doctor as is evident from his statement and he has also stated that the Doctor was present at the time of recording of statement of deceased. PW-23 Babu Ram too has stated that when the injured was in hospital, he along with Gushu Ram recorded the statement of Sita Devi (deceased) and FIR was registered on the basis of her statement only. He also stated that though the deceased was completely burnt but she was fit to make statement. PW-23 Babu Ram too has stated that when the injured was in hospital, he along with Gushu Ram recorded the statement of Sita Devi (deceased) and FIR was registered on the basis of her statement only. He also stated that though the deceased was completely burnt but she was fit to make statement. Her statement was recorded only after Doctor confirmed that she was fit to make statement. He has also corroborated the presence of Doctor on spot, when statement of the deceased was being recorded. PW-20 Doctor Anayatullah has stated that the condition of patient having 100% burn is critical and level of consciousness varies from patient to patient. If the statement of PW-20 Doctor Anayatullah is read in conjunction with that of PW-16 Doctor Uttam Singh, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make statement despite the fact that she had suffered 100% burns. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-16 Doctor Uttam Singh. Further, the dying declaration of the deceased bears her signature and the defence never disputed the signatures of the deceased during the trial. Even PW-17 Gushu Ram was never cross-examined by the defence during trial regarding the signature of the deceased on the dying declaration. The signature of the deceased further gives credence to the version of the prosecution that the deceased was fit to make statement. Further from the post mortem report (EXPW-AS) too, we find that superficial burns were present all over the face, neck, chest, abdomen, back and both lower limbs meaning there by that her hands were not burnt. Thus, there is no doubt that the deceased Sita Devi had signed the dying declaration. All these PWs i.e. PW-16 Doctor Uttam Singh, PW-23 Babu Ram and PW-17 Gushu Ram have been cross-examined at length by the defence but despite that the defence has not been able to destroy or impair the credibility of these witnesses. 34. Another important aspect that further strengthens the prosecution case is that the occurrence took place on 16.06.1998 at 4.15 PM and FIR was registered on 16.06.1998 at 19.30 hours, whereas the information regarding the burning of the deceased and her admission in Hospital was received at Police Station at 5.00 P.M, as is evident from the statement of PW-17 Gushu Ram. During this period, the statement of the deceased was recorded. The statement of the deceased ExPW-GR was recorded with promptitude and it certainly excludes the possibility of tutoring the deceased. PW-7 to PW-10, who have deposed about the conduct/behaviour of the appellants with deceased are no doubt the close relatives of the deceased but it is difficult to assume that they would tutor the deceased to make statement against appellants within such a short span of time particularly when they would be in a state of shock due to occurrence, as a course of normal human conduct. The deceased was a young girl of 21 years of age who could not even spend six months of happy married life but her life was cut short by the appellants by their barbaric act. There is no doubt in our minds that the deceased was burnt by appellant Nos. 3 and 4, and absconding accused, whereas the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were present on spot. They instead of preventing the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 and absconding accused, instigated them to kill the deceased. All the appellants acted in tandem to kill the deceased. PW 7-Sat Paul and PW-8 Rashpal Singh (Both brothers of the deceased), PW 9-Dhano(mother), PW-10 Santosh Kumari (Sister-in-Law), have in one voice stated that the deceased was burnt by her sisters-in law, namely, Neelam, Babli, mother-in-law, in presence of appellant Nos. 1 and 2. This is admitted fact that the deceased was residing with the appellants in their home and she died because of burns in their home. The appellants have not been able to furnish any plausible explanation as to how the deceased suffered burn injuries, when she was sitting on a sofa in a room. It owed an explanation from the appellants but they remained silent. 35. It was also contended by the appellants that appellant No. 2 in fact tried to save the deceased and by doing so, he received 20% burns and he remained admitted in the hospital. It needs to be noted that in statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.PC, no such plea has been taken by appellant No. 2. No doubt appellant No. 2 filed an application before the trial court for summoning the medical record pertaining to him from GMC Jammu but the said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 13.02.2019. It needs to be noted that in statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.PC, no such plea has been taken by appellant No. 2. No doubt appellant No. 2 filed an application before the trial court for summoning the medical record pertaining to him from GMC Jammu but the said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 13.02.2019. The said application was filed when even the trial had not begun. The appellants led defence evidence before trial court but for the reasons best known to them, no effort was made by them to get the said record summoned. Even otherwise, the deceased was taken to her parent’s home by appellant No. 2 instead of hospital and even if, he might have suffered severe burns, the same would not absolve the appellant No. 2 of his guilt. 36. From the evidence on record in view of the statements of PW 7-Sat Paul and PW-8 Rashpal Singh (Both brothers of the deceased), PW 9-Dhano (mother), PW-10 Santosh Kumari (Sister-in-Law), it is established that Bir Singh (appellant No.1-now dead) demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the father of the deceased for purchase of shop for his daughters and the father of the deceased could not pay. There is also evidence on record that the deceased was harassed, maltreated and were beaten by all the appellants as is evident from her dying declaration as well. The demand was made by appellant No. 1 now dead but it was for the purpose of purchase of shop for his daughters i.e. sisters-in-law of the deceased. When the demand was not met by her father, she was maltreated, harassed and beaten as well by all the appellants. Thus there was sufficient evidence for conviction of the appellants under section 498-A RPC as well. The testimonies of PW 7-Sat Paul and PW-8 Rashpal Singh (Both brothers of the deceased), PW 9-Dhano (mother), PW-10 Santosh Kumari (Sister-in-Law) cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are interested and related witnesses. Needless to say that in marital disputes whether civil or criminal, there can hardly be any independent witness with regard to what transpires/happens within the precincts of matrimonial home. We do not find any reason as to why the mother, brothers of the deceased would tell a lie. 37. In Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 561 , Apex Court has held as under:- “29. We do not find any reason as to why the mother, brothers of the deceased would tell a lie. 37. In Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 561 , Apex Court has held as under:- “29. In our opinion, there is no reason to discard the evidence of the father and mother of the deceased who are the most natural and material witnesses to speak on such issues. Indeed, in such circumstances, the daughter - a newly married girl would always like to first disclose her domestic problems to her mother and father and then to her close relatives because they have access to her and are always helpful in solving her problems. 30. We have not been able to notice any kind of contradiction on any of the material issues in the evidence of these four witnesses despite they being subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence. That apart, why should a mother and a father speak lie unless there are justifiable reasons behind it. We do not find any such reason in this case. Not only that, even their relatives i.e. Bhimappa and Kristappa supported their version.” 38. The appellants though have led evidence in defence but the same is not trustworthy and in fact becomes meaningless in view of the cogent and strong evidence led by the prosecution. 39. We have perused the judgment impugned and we find that the learned trial court has dealt with all the issues raised by the parties very aptly. The learned trial court has passed a well reasoned judgment by placing reliance upon the various pronouncements of Apex Court. We have considered the contentions raised by the appellants but we have not been able to persuade ourselves to take any view other than that of trial court. 40. In view of what has been discussed above, the present appeal is found to be without merits. The appeal so far as appellant No. 1 is concerned, stands abated and the appeal qua the other appellants is dismissed. The judgment dated 14.02.2005 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in File No. 59/Sessions titled “State versus Bir Singh & Ors.” is upheld and the sentence awarded to the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 is confirmed. The appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are on bail. The judgment dated 14.02.2005 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in File No. 59/Sessions titled “State versus Bir Singh & Ors.” is upheld and the sentence awarded to the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 is confirmed. The appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before Superintendent, District Jail Jammu with in a period of four weeks from today taking into consideration the old age ailments of appellant No. 3 (mother-in-law). On failure to surrender by the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 within aforesaid period, the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law. Registry to make endorsement in the cause title of the appeal with regard to the death of appellant No.1. 41. Record of the trial court be sent back along with copy of this judgment. 42. Reference is answered accordingly.