Amit Kumar & Anr vs State Of Punjab

story lies in the fact, that the victim lost her life, because

her parents failed to provide a refrigerator and a

television.

3. With the aforesaid tragic prelude, we can now

proceed to decipher the events which culminated in the

burning of Anita Rani on the morning of 26.6.1997.

4. According to Kimti Lal, PW1 and Gulshan Kumar,

PW5, it was Asha Rani PW2, neighbour of the deceased,

who told them that Anita Rani had been set ablaze with

kerosene oil. Thereafter, they went to the house of the

accused where they saw Anita Rani lying in the

courtyard, having been severely burnt. However, the fire

had been extinguished by the time they reached. On

enquiry made by Kimti Lal, PW1, Anita Rani stated

3 "Kailash Rani, Amit Kumar, Brij Bhushan and Neelam

Rani had put kerosene oil on her and set her on fire and

she should be saved." At that time, all the accused were

present in the courtyard. Kimti Lal and Gulshan Kumar

took Anita Rani to Dayanand Medical College/Hospital,

Ludhiana and got her admitted there. ASI Rajpal Singh

(PW 17) received information about the incident at about

12.15 p.m. He promptly reached the hospital (DMC), and

made preliminary enquiries. Thereafter, he went to the

Duty Magistrate and moved a request application

(Ex.P26) at 4.30 p.m. for recording the statement of Anita

Rani. (Endorsement Ex.P27 was made by Judicial

Magistrate i.e. on the application). Within a short period,

ASI Rajpal Singh alongwith Harjinder Pal Singh, PW13,

the then Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana,

reached the hospital. Opinion of the doctor regarding the

fitness of the patient was given at 5.05 p.m. (Ex.P28).

After she was declared fit (endorsement Ex.P11), her

statement (Ex.P29) was recorded at 5.25 p.m. Thereafter,

4 ASI Rajpal Singh, PW17 recorded another statement of

Anita Rani (Ex.P8) from 5.40 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. This

statement was also recorded after obtaining the opinion

of the doctor (Ex.P13). On the basis of the aforesaid

statement, a ruqa was sent for the registration of the

case at the Police Station, Moga resulting in the recording

of a formal FIR (Ex.P7). Initially, the FIR was recorded

under Section 307/498-A/34 IPC against all the four

accused, namely, Amit Kumar, Brij Bhushan, Kailash

Rani and Neelam Rani. However, Anita Rani died on 1st

July, 1997. Therefore, the case was registered under

Section 302 read with 34 IPC against all the four

accused. However, Kailash Rani passed away before

committal proceedings. Consequently, the proceedings

against her was abated.

5. The aforesaid three accused were duly put on trial

for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. At

the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Apart

5 from giving their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C,

the accused also examined 9 witnesses in defence. Upon

meticulous examination of the entire evidence, the trial

court convicted Amit Kumar and Brij Bhushan under

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of

Anita Rani. However, Neelam Rani was given benefit of

doubt and acquitted.

6. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the two

appellants by way of Criminal Appeal No. 226-DB of 2002

before the High Court. Upon a complete reappraisal of

the evidence, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed

by the two appellants.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length.

8. Challenging the findings and observations of the

Courts below, the learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that this is a case of a tainted investigation.

The evidence of prosecution witnesses can not establish

6 the guilt of the appellants as their evidence is only with

regard to the maltreatment being given to the deceased.

None of them being eye-witnesses can possibly state as to

whether she committed suicide or not. Asha Rani only

stated that Anita Rani had told her that she had been

burnt by them. She did not name any person as an

accused. Although she says that she saw Kailash Rani

and Neelam Rani were present, she did not see any other

accused in the house. Even otherwise her evidence is

worthless as she was declared hostile, when she denied

having made any previous statement, in which she had

named the accused, as having set Anita Rani on fire.

Learned counsel further pointed out that evidence of

Gulshan Kumar (DW8) who also sustained burn injuries

has been wrongly ignored. He had given a true account of

the events. He was the only eye witness. With regard to

the investigation, it is submitted that Rajpal Singh, ASI

was hand-in-glove with the parents of the deceased. He

pointed out a number of procedural irregularities. He

7 actually doubted the manner in which Rajpal Singh, ASI

came to know about the incident. The sum total of the

submissions of the learned counsel seems to be that the

investigation was unsatisfactory, as well being partial.

Learned counsel also submitted that both the Courts

below have committed a serious error in relying on the

dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. He

has submitted that Anita Rani was so badly burnt, she

was in no fit state to make such a lengthy statement. It

has been fabricated at the instance of ASI Rajpal Singh.

Both the Courts, according to the learned counsel, have

erred in not giving proper weightage to the statement

made to the doctor which was recorded in the bedhead

ticket of the patient. The doctor had clearly recorded the

statement of Anita Rani that she had set herself ablaze.

It was only subsequently at the instance of Rajpal Singh,

ASI that the accused i.e. appellants had been named by

Anita Rani. Learned counsel laid considerable emphasis

on the fact that conduct of the appellants in removing the

8 injured immediately to the hospital clearly shows that the

accused made all efforts to save Anita Rani, after she had

set herself on fire.

9. We have given our anxious thought to the

submissions of the learned counsel. We are, however,

unable to accept any of the submissions of the counsel of

the appellants.

10. The trial court as also the High Court has

meticulously examined and re-examined the entire

evidence to conclude that the two appellants are guilty of

murdering Anita Rani by setting her on fire as she and

her parents had failed to meet the wholly unlawful

demands of dowry. The entire body of evidence seems to

leave no manner of doubt that the trial court as well as

the High Court has correctly concluded that the two

appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

9

11. From the evidence on record, it would appear that

the present two appellants and the two accused, namely,

Kailash Rani and Neelam Rani were arrested on 29th

June, 1997. Kimti Lal (PW1), who is the real brother of

the deceased, has narrated the entire history of

harassment of the deceased prior to her being set on fire

by the accused persons. Gulshan Kumar (PW5) is a

cousin of Anita Rani, deceased. He has corroborated the

testimony of Kimti Lal, PW1 in all details. He has

deposed about the demands made by the accused for

dowry in the shape of television and refrigerator. He also

talked about the continuous maltreatment given by the

accused persons to Anita Rani. Asha Rani, PW2 had

initially made a statement before the police giving a

graphic account of how Anita Rani was set on fire by the

accused persons after pouring kerosene oil on her. She,

however, did not reiterate the entire sequence in Court,

which in all probability, led to her being declared hostile.

Even then, in Court, she unequivocally stated that due to

10 the disputes over dowry, there always used to be quarrels

between the accused and the deceased. The in-laws were

always asking for more dowry and used to taunt her.

However, so far as the tragic incident of 26.6.1997 is

concerned, she only stated that when she reached the

house of Anita Rani, the fire had already been

extinguished and Anita Rani did not disclose to her as to

who had set her ablaze. In the earlier statement, she had

specifically named the present appellants actively

participating in setting Anita Rani on fire by pouring

kerosene oil on her. Another witness Satnam Singh,

PW3, is a Carpenter, who had been working in the

neighbourhood of the accused. He also stated that on the

day of the occurrence he had seen a fire burning in the

house of the accused. When he pushed the door open

and entered the house, he had seen one person trying to

extinguish the fire. Thereafter, he also helped in

extinguishing the fire. Afterwards, he went back to his

place of work. PW4 Dr. U.S. Sooch, Medical Officer, Civil

11 Hospital, Ludhiana conducted the autopsy on the dead

body of Anita Rani on 1.7.1997 at 4.40 p.m. He observed

as follows:

"The dead body was 5 feet 4 inches long. It was naked, well built and well nourished, Eyes and mouth were partially open. Post mortem staining was present on the posterior surface of viscera and was patchy. The rigor mortis was present in the upper limbs only. The vene section wound was on the left ankle and pad ink blue in colour was present on the right big toe. He found the following injuries on the dead body :

(1) Superficial to deep infected burns all over the body except the grow in area, public area, vulva and both feet, singeing of hairs of body, Scalp and face were present. Puss and slough formation was present at multiple areas with crust formation of the superficial wounds of burns."

He also observed that pleura larynx, tracheae and

both lungs were congested. The stomach contained 250cc

of fluids. The liver, spleen and kidneys were also

congested. Urinary bladder and uterus were healthy and

empty. He has opined that the cause of death was due to

12 septicaemia as a result of infected extensive burns, which

were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of

nature and the burns were ante mortem in nature. He

further opined that the probable time between burns and

death was about six days and between death and post

mortem was about six hours. He has further deposed

that the post mortem was conducted after observing

normal formalities and upon an application made by the

police (Ex.P6). The fitness of the deceased to make the

statement was duly proved by PW7 Dr. Sanjiv Kumar

Singla. At this stage, we must also notice that the

bedhead ticket (Ex.P13) pertaining to Anita Rani

prepared at DMC has been proved by Dr. Panjak Arora,

PW8. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Amit

Kumar had brought Anita Rani to the hospital and she

was alleged to have sustained burn injuries after she set

herself on fire because of some dispute with the family

members on 26.6.1997 at 10 a.m. Ashish Gupta, PW9,

Registrar, DMC, Ludhiana has deposed that Anita Rani

13 was admitted in the hospital on 26.6.1997 at 11.20 a.m.

He had sent the necessary intimation to the police station

regarding Anita Rani being brought to the hospital having

approximately 90% burns of second and third degrees.

Although the patient had been burnt at about 10 a.m. on

26.6.1997, she was conscious and oriented. He opined

that the nature of the injuries was dangerous. He has

also stated that Anita Rani was shifted to burn Intensive

Care Unit on 26.6.1997 at about 2.00 p.m. He had

further stated, during cross-examination, that after a

patient suffers 90% burn injuries, he goes into primary

shock initially for 2 to 4 hours. He however further

testified that according to the record, she remained

conscious throughout the period. Raj Kumar PW10 is

the photographer, who has proved the photographs

(Ex.P21 to P23). Ex.P18 to P20 are the negatives of the

photographs. PW11, Gursewak Singh is the Draftsman,

who prepared the scaled site plan of the place of

occurrence. Subhash Chander, PW12 is another witness

14 produced by the prosecution to the effect that he had

intervened in the dispute of Anita Rani and her in-laws

as she was being harassed on account of demand of

dowry. PW14 Mangat Ram is again a witness with regard

to the demand of dowry. He has narrated that there was

a demand of TV and Refrigerator by the appellants. He

had intervened in the dispute, it was as a result of his

undertaking that Anita Rani was sent back to the

matrimonial home.

12. ASI HC Hardial Singh, PW15 delivered the special

report to the Ilaqa Magistrate on 26.6.1997 at 10.00 p.m.

HC Gurmail Singh, PW16 produced the Roznamcha for

the period from 20.6.1997 to 11.7.1997 of Police Station,

Moga City - I. ASI Rajpal Singh is the investigating

officer. We may notice at this stage that the statement

(Ex.P29) recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in the

vernacular language was treated as a dying declaration

15 upon the death of Anita Rani. The translated version of

the dying declaration is:-

"There used to be a quarrel on trivial matters. My younger Darani (my husband's brother's wife) had gone to her parents after quarrelling. I have been residing separate from my in-laws in the same house. My husband's younger brother washed his banyan (under garment) himself. It happened a day before yesterday that my husband had slapped me and given fist blows and he had refused to take meals from me. I had said that I should work as well and bear the beatings. My husband was also saying that I was a clung (i.e. clunk) to him. A day before yesterday when I had asked my husband to take meals then he had told that "Tere Maan bap da siapa kar ke awanga" (he will go and protest before her parents.) My husband had also told me that if I died, he will have no worry. My husband's younger brother Babbu, mother-in-law Kailash Rani, my husband, my husband's sister were also standing there (uni kol khari see). Then my husband's elder brother came there and put off the fire. Kerosene oil was sprinkled upon me by my mother-in-law, my husband's younger brother and my husband after taking me near the kacha kotha in the courtyard of

16 our house. When my husband, my mother-in-law and my husband's younger brother set me on fire, then my sister-in-law was standing there. My husband's elder brother and his wife, both saved me. When a mattress (Gadha) was demanded for placing the same upon me, then my mother-in-law told that she had no mattress. My in-laws were saying that neither the refrigerator nor a television has been given in dowry and only a scooter has been given. Now I have brought utensils from my parental house, then they said that why she had brought utensils by demanding the same and why these utensils were not given at the time of Marriage? I do not want to say anything more.

R.O.A.C. Sd/- JMIC(Duty) 26.6.1997 statement recorded between 5:10 p.m. to 5:25 p.m.)".

13. It has also come in the statement of Judicial

Magistrate Harinder Pal Singh (PW 13) that since all the

finger tips of the hands of Anita Rani were burnt, she had

put the impression of her right toe on the dying

declaration. A note (Ex.P30/1) was recorded by the

Magistrate in this regard. Another note (Ex.P30/3) was

also recorded, which indicated that Anita Rani had made

17 her statement voluntarily and which contains the true

account of the statement made by her. In court the

Judicial Magistrate reiterated that upon reaching the

hospital, he had sought the information about the fitness

of Anita Rani from Dr. Sanjiv Kumar Singla, who was

present in the burn Intensive Care Unit of DMC,

Ludhiana. The witness has duly proved the opinion

(Ex.P11) made by the doctor declaring that Anita Rani

was fit to make a statement. It is categorically stated by

the Judicial Magistrate that Anita Rani understood the

questions and the answers that were being recorded. He

has also stated that the statement was made by Anita

Rani out of her free will. He has proved the statement

(Ex.P29) and the endorsement (Ex.P30) by which he had

certified that Anita Rani had put impression of her right

toe on the dying declaration as impression of the finger

tips of her hands could not be taken because all the

finger tips were burnt.

18

14. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the

trial court examined the accused under Section 313 of

the Criminal Procedure Code and the incriminating

circumstances appearing against the accused in the

prosecution evidence were put to them. All the accused

pleaded that they were innocent and that the witnesses

being relations of the deceased are only interested in the

success of the case. The appellants Amit Kumar and Brij

Bhushan run cloth shop at Village Daroli Bhai. It was

further stated by them that on the date of the occurrence

Poonam w/o Brij Bhushan had gone to her parental

house. Therefore, when Amit Kumar asked his wife Anita

Rani to prepare the food for them, she had flatly refused

to do so. Consequently, both of them did not have their

meal and left for the shop at 8.30 a.m. It was only when

Brij Bhushan and Amit Kumar were standing at the

tempo stand, Moga for going to Village Daroli Bhai that

they received a message that Anita Rani has set herself

ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil on her. On the return

19 to the house, they saw that Anita Rani had been burnt

and their brother Gulshan Kumar had also got burn

injuries while extinguishing the fire. Then Amit Kumar

called her parents and arranged a jeep and took Anita

Rani to DMC, Ludhiana in order to save her life. It was

also stated that Gulshan Kumar, Brother-in-law of Amit

Kumar, Purshottam Lal and Kimati Lal had also

accompanied Anita Rani and Gulshan Kumar to DMC.

They denied making any demands for dowry from Anita

Rani or from her parents. It was also the case of Amit

Kumar that Anita Rani had told the doctor, who prepared

the case history that she had set herself on fire. This

was all changed at about 1.30 p.m. when his father-in-

law Sant Lal reached there alongwith ASI Rajpal Singh,

who is close to them. It is also alleged that he was

illegally detained by Rajpal Singh, ASI. The appellants

also examined DW1 to DW9 in their defence. DW4 Dr.

Ashok Kumar has proved the burn injuries suffered by

Gulshan Kumar at the time of extinguishing the fire of

20 Anita Rani on 26.6.1997. He has also proved bed head

ticket of Gulshan Kumar (Ex.D17) and Anita Rani

(Ex.D18). DW8, Gulshan Kumar, who is the brother of

the accused stated that he with the help of Satnam Singh

and his wife put off the fire. He had further stated that

Anita Rani had disclosed to his wife that she had herself

set ablaze. DW9, Harish Kumar is a witness to prove the

plea of Alibi set up by the accused Neelam Rani. Since

she has been acquitted, the High Court treated this as

irrelevant. We need say no more on this issue.

15. The High Court while examining the various

submissions made on behalf of the appellants has come

to the conclusion that the dying declaration is a clinching

piece of evidence as it was recorded by the Judicial

Magistrate within a few hours of the occurrence. We

have also seen the contents of the dying declaration. This

statement which was recorded in the vernacular has

been translated into English with exactitude. A bare

21 perusal of the same would show that whole statement is

spontaneous and sets out the correct version of the

events leading to her being set on fire. She does not

unfairly implicate anybody who had not participated in

the crime. She clearly stated that her younger Darani i.e.

husband's brother's wife had gone to her parents after

quarrelling. She also states that there was a quarrel

between her and her husband. He had slapped her and

refused to take any food from her. She had retorted that

she does all the work in the house and still she has to

bear the beatings with shoes. He had earlier informed

her that he was going to protest to her parents about her

misbehavior. He had categorically told that if she dies,

he would have no worries. She stated that her husband's

younger brother, mother-in-law, her husband and her

husband's sister were also standing there. But she then

correctly states that her husband's elder brother tried to

save her by extinguishing the fire. In the very next line,

she again states that kerosene oil was sprinkled upon her

22 by her mother-in-law, her husband's younger brother

and her husband. This was done by taking her near the

"kacha kotha". She stated that her mother-in-law, her

husband and younger brother set her on fire. But her

husband's elder brother and his wife, both tried to save

her. In our opinion, both the Courts below have correctly

relied on the dying declaration. We are unable to accept

the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that

the aforesaid dying declaration ought to be disbelieved on

the basis that it may be a result of tutoring by her family

members. In fact, this very objection has been

considered by the High Court. It has been specifically

noticed in the judgment of the High Court that the

statement had been recorded after an application

(Ex.P26) had been moved before the Magistrate. The

Judicial Magistrate also stated that all safeguards were

observed by him before recording the statement. He was

cross-examined at length but nothing fruitful could be

extracted from his statement which would show that the

23 dying declaration was a tainted one. The Magistrate has

categorically stated in his evidence that Anita Rani was

lying in the cabin at the time when the statement was

recorded. The cabin was not accessible to the relatives of

the injured and she could be seen from outside only

through the glass of the cabin. It must be remembered

that at the time Anita Rani had been taken to the

Intensive Burn Injury Unit, she had received 90% burn

injuries of second and third degrees. Therefore, she was

isolated in the burn unit to avoid any chances of

infection. She was so badly injured that her statement

had to be identified by the right toe print of her foot.

16. In view of the above, we are unable to disbelieve the

statement (Ex.P29) which has ultimately been declared

as a dying declaration. This Court while stating the

principles of testing the authenticity of a dying

declaration has observed in the case of Paniben (Smt.)

Vs. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474 as follows:- 24

"18. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under:

(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without

25 corroboration. (Munnu Raja v. State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 104).

(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC 552; Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar (1983) 1 SCC 211).

(iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor (1976) 3 SCC 618).

(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.

(Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. (1974) 4 SCC 264).

(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of M.P. (1981) Supp SCC 25)

(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram Manorath v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 654)

(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to

26 be rejected. (State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu (1980) Supp SCC 455)

(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar (1980) Supp SCC

769)

(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanahau Ram v. State of M.P. (1988) Supp SCC 152)

(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan (1989) 3 SCC 390)."

27 Applying the aforesaid ratio of law we find that there

is no occasion to disbelieve the dying declaration in the

facts and circumstances of the present case.

17. We also see no reason to doubt the presence of the

witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW5. Asha Rani had been told

by Anita Rani that she had been burnt. Similarly,

Satnam Singh, PW3 came into the compound after he

saw the smoke from the fire in which Anita Rani was

burning. The evidence of PW1, Kimti Lal and PW5,

Gulshan Kumar is unflinching, coherent and consistent.

Both the witnesses have withstood lengthy cross-

examination without any loss of credibility. Their

evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that

they are close relations of the deceased. Even Asha Rani,

PW2 had stated that Anita Rani had named the

appellants as the persons who set her on fire. She seems

to have changed her stand, during the long interval

between the earlier statement and the time when she

28 appeared in court, for reasons best known to her, but not

difficult to discern. But that is no reason to discard her

entire evidence. In our opinion, the course adopted by

the Courts below can not be said to be erroneous. In

similar circumstances, this Court has in the case of Sat

Paul Vs. Delhi Administration (1976) 1 SCC 727, has

observed as follows:

"From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it."

29 Without reference to any case law, the Courts below

have correctly applied the aforesaid principle to the facts

of the present case.

18. There remains no doubt that the appellants had

indeed set the deceased on fire. Much emphasis was

placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the

history recorded on the bedhead ticket (Ex.P13). In this

history, it is stated that the patient had herself claimed to

have set herself on fire by using kerosene oil on account

of some fight within the family members at 10.00 a.m. on

26.6.1997. The High Court examined the bedhead ticket

and observed that the whole record is made subsequently

by the doctor as he is making repeated entries with

regard to the previous history at different stages. This

was not required at all. In his enthusiasm to help the

accused, at one stage, he even goes to the extent of

showing that fire was extinguished by husband and

30 family members by using water and cloth. This was not

even the case pleaded by appellant Amit Kumar and Brij

Bhushan, who had put forward a plea of alibi to show

that they were not even present at the time when Anita

Rani received the burn injuries. Similarly the testimony

of Gulshan Kumar (DW8) has been held to be unreliable

as he was trying to save his kith and kin. He has made

improvements in his statement (Ex.DE), while stating

that Anita Rani disclosed to his wife she committed

suicide and it was her mistake. In our opinion, the courts

below have correctly held that this was an effort made by

the witness to save his family. Clearly the appellants had

resorted to telling one lie after another to escape the

conviction for the murder which they had clearly

committed.

19. In view of the aforesaid, we find no reason

whatsoever to interfere with the verdict recorded by the

31 trial court as well as the High Court in convicting the

appellants of murder.

20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

..................................J. [B.Sudershan Reddy]

.............................

......J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 12, 2010.

32