The deceased X was living with her husband Y (accused) in a row house situated at Navi
Mumbai. They came to stay at the said place after their marriage, three years prior to the date
of incident. This house was bought by the husband after securing loan from the bank.
The husband Y wanted the deceased X to contribute towards the cost of row house and
wanted her to bring Rs. 10 lacs from her father who was sufficiently sound as far as his
financial status was concerned. The deceased did not agree for the same because her father
had other financial liabilities, like marriage of his two other daughters. Because of such
demands there used to be quarrels between the husband (accused) and the deceased wife.
Sometimes the accused used to physically assault the deceased as she was not willing to
demand money from her father. At the same time, she was constantly under mental torture
because of repeated demands of the accused.
On the date of incident there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and during
the said quarrel the accused picked up a kerosene stove which was being rarely used, when
gas was not available and found that there was some kerosene in the stove tank. He poured
that kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire with his cigarette lighter. Immediately
thereafter the accused left the spot and did not return for hours.
After witnessing smoke from the house of accused, neighbours called parents of the deceased
who were staying in the colony at the distance of few row houses. They immediately reached
the spot and took their daughter to the hospital. She was admitted in the hospital in a burn
ward and was being treated. She had suffered 85% burn injuries but was able to talk though
incoherently.
The hospital authority intimated the police. By the time police reached the hospital, condition
of the deceased had become precarious. She narrated the incident to her father who recorded
the same after obtaining a piece of paper from the hospital staff. Major portion of the incident
was covered in the said writing. However, before the father could complete writing her
statement and take thumb impression of his daughter, she died.
The police reached the hospital after sometime and the dead body was sent for post-mortem
examination. The Doctor stated in his report that the deceased had died due to shock
following 85% of superficial to deep injuries.
In the meantime, the accused also reached the hospital and showed his ignorance about the
said incident. He claimed that the deceased must have committed suicide. The police
however on the basis of statement recorded by father arrested the accused and took him to the
police station.
From the spot of the incident, stove and cigarette lighter were found which were seized by the
police. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for
the offences punishable under sections 302, 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under
the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The accused was tried and acquitted by the Trial Court on the ground that the dying
declaration was not recorded by the Magistrate and there was no medical certificate regarding
fitness of the deceased before giving the dying declaration. Moreover, father was an
interested witness in the case.
The State filed an appeal before the High Court against the judgement of acquittal. In the
appeal, following law points arose for consideration before the High Court-
1. Whether it is necessary to issue medical certificate before recording the dying declaration
necessarily?
2. Whether the dying declaration not recorded by the Magistrate can be relied upon in the
circumstances of the present case?
3. Whether dying declaration by itself is sufficient for conviction or needs corroboration with
other evidences?
4. Whether conduct of the accused of absconding for few ours be a circumstance against the
accused?
5. Can the dying declaration recorded by the father be rejected because he was father of the
deceased? (interested witness)
6. Whether few missing points in the dying declaration with regard to the incident be
prejudicial to the case of the State?
Too long a story.
Please be brief in facts and specific in query.
