The State Of Punjab vs Gian Kaur And Anr
- AIRAIR 1998 SC 2809
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a trial court's conviction rests solely on a dying declaration, and medical evidence establishes facts materially inconsistent with that declaration (such as burns so severe as to render the declarant incapable of making a coherent statement), the appellate court may disbelieve the dying declaration and acquit the accused, and such acquittal does not constitute an unreasonable exercise of appellate jurisdiction warranting interference by a higher court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The State has filed t his appeal against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 13/87. The High Court acquitted both the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Both the respondents alongwith two others were tried for causing death of Rita, Respondents - Gian Kaur, Balvinder kaur, Darshan lal and Balbir were the mother-in- law, sister-in-law, father-in-law and husband respectively of Rita (deceased).
The proesecution case was that they were not satisfied with the dowry given to her by her parents at the time of her marriage and that had often led to quarrels between the accused and Rita and her parents. According to the prosecution, on 21.6.86 at about 6.00 p.m., Gian Kaur and Balvinder Kaur sprinkled kerosene on her and thereafter Gian kaur set her on fire by throwing a lighted match stick on her. It was further alleged that the mother-in-law wanted to get her son re-married and for that reason also she wanted to kill her.
The only evidence which was relied on by the prosecution and on the basis of which the trial court convicted Gian Kaur and Balvinder kaur was the dying declaration recorded by ASI-Darshan Singh - PW 5.
The High Court disbelieved the dying declaration on the ground that even thought according to the medical evidence Rita had 100% burns over her body. The High Court relied upon the deposition of Doctor Aneja, who had performed the post-mortem and who has categorically stated that there were 100% burns over her body and both the thumbs of Rita were burnt. In view of such inconsistent evidence, the High Court was right in giving benefit of doubt to the respondents. It cannot be said in this case that the High Court has taken an unreasonable view.
This appeal is, therefore, dismissed, Bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free