State Of Rajasthan vs Parmendra Singh

State of Rajasthan ....Appellant

Versus

Parmendra Singh ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, directing acquittal of the respondent who

faced trial alongwith two others namely, Smt. Keshar Kanwar and Tara

Devi. They faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under

Sections 302, 498-A, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

the `IPC'). The trial Court acquitted the accused Keshar Kanwar from the

charges relatable to Section 498-A, 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC. The accused Tara Devi was acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A and

120-B. Respondent Parmendra Singh was acquitted from the charges under

Sections 120-B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC but he was sentenced to

undergo life imprisonment and three years RI for the offences punishable

under Section 302 and 498-A IPC respectively.

2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

On 1st February, 1992 Dr. Khushiram Tewani (PW-30) was working

at the post of Medical Officer, Incharge at Primary Health Centre, Bagaur. In

the afternoon on that day S.H.O., Bagaur brought Lalita, wife of respondent

in burnt and unconscious condition for medical treatment. Lalita was

admitted in the Primary Health Centre by him and initial treatment was

given to her. In this regard, a slip Ex.P-58 was prepared. Lalita's body was

received with more than 80% burn injuries and considering her condition he

could not give her medical treatment due to lack of resources. Therefore,

within half an hour she was referred to District Hospital, Bhilwara.

According to Ex.P-58 at 3.05 in the afternoon Lalita was brought before

him.

2 There were several statements of the deceased which were treated as

dying declarations.

The trial Court found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced as

noted above basing on the dying declarations.

In appeal, the High Court directed acquittal primarily on the ground

that the dying declarations were not reliable. The Police Regulation relating

to recording of dying declaration was violated and the deceased was not in a

position to give her statement. It was noted that there was great variation

between the dying declarations. There were four dying declarations in fact.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that in all the dying

declarations name of the husband was mentioned and in all the four dying

declarations the role played by the mother was also described except one

where the father-in-law was named. Learned counsel for the respondent

supported the judgment of the High Court.

4. It is to be noted that the High Court observed that the first dying

declaration was to be disbelieved on the ground that there was no

3 endorsement that the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement. The

view expressed is clearly contrary to what has been stated by this Court in

Laxman v. State of Maharashtra [2002 (6) SCC 710]. So far as the non

observance of the procedure laid down in Police Regulation is concerned,

this court had occasion to deal with the nature of the police guidelines. It

was observed that mere non-observance of the procedure indicated does not

render the dying declaration suspect. So far as the first dying declaration is

concerned, it was recorded at about 3.00 p.m. at PHC, Bagaur. The incident

was around 2.00 p.m. The first dying declaration was recorded by the doctor

(PW-30). The second was recorded by the SHO (PW-28). Third was by the

Sub-Inspector (PW-15) in the presence of Dr. A.K. Mathur (PW-11) and two

others. Finally, the fourth dying declaration was recorded before S.S.

Kothari (PW-13) ADM City, Bhilwara and Puran Chand Gupta, Assistant

Collector, Bhilwara in the presence of Dr. Arvind Malhotra (PW-12). In the

last dying declaration it was noted by the doctor that the patient was in a fit

condition to give statement.

5. There is no material to show that the dying declarations were the

result of tutoring or prompting. In all the dying declarations the respondent

4 has been specifically named, and the role played by him has been

categorically described.

6. That being so, the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal.

The same is set aside. Respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to

serve the remainder of sentence.

7. The appeal is allowed.

.....................................J (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, May 04, 2009

5