Mr. Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Dhruv Chaudhry, Mr. Adeeb Ahmad Ms. Eshita Pallavi, Advs v. STATE

Judgment

1. This judgment shall decide the above noted Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C.”] assailing the judgment dated 02.03.2002 convicting him for committing an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] followed by the order on sentence dated 18.03.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the ‘trial Court’), whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:12.03.2025 16:01:04 CRL.A. 378/2002 Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. In short, the appellant was married to the victim, Anita Rani, on

07.03.1991. He was primarily charged for committing an offence under section 302 of the IPC for allegedly dousing the victim with kerosene oil, using two makeshift kerosene lamps, setting her ablaze on 05.07.1998 at approximately 5:00 PM and fleeing the site through the back/rear exit of their house no. RZ-B-80, Old Roshan Pura, Najafgarh, Delhi, as a result of which she sustained burn injuries and eventually succumbed to the same after 48 days on 24.08.1998. 3. The prosecution case is that on 05.07.1998, PW-17/SI1 Jaggu Ram, the Investigating Officer [“IO”] received DD2 No. 26A Ex. PW-17/A at 18:05 hours to the effect that one Anita w/o Sunil R/o House No. 103, Old Roshan Pura, Nazafgarh was admitted in PHC3 with 60% burns and on reaching PHC, Nazafgarh alongwith PW-12/Constable Naresh, they were informed that the injured had been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Upon that, PW17/SI Jaggu Ram reached Safdarjung Hospital, where he found the victim Anita admitted therein with deep burn injuries to the extent of 35%. The IO/PW-17 Jaggu Ram took into possession, MLC4 Ex.PW-16/A prepared by PW-16 Dr. Parag Neyog, wherein the victim purportedly stated that her husband set her ablaze after pouring kerosine upon her. Upon the attending PW-14 Dr. Rajeev Rajput certifying that the patient/victim was “fit for giving statement” vide opinion Ex.PW-14/A, PW-17/SI Jaggu Ram recorded the 1 Sub Inspector 2 Daily Diary 3 Primary Health Centre 4 Medico-Legal Case Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:12.03.2025 16:01:04 CRL.A. 378/2002 statement of the victim Ex.PW-17/B, which goes as under:- ब्यान आजाने ्ቦीम�त Anita W/o Sushil Kumar R/o 103, Old Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi उ्቞ 27 साल “ब्यान �कया क� म� उपरोक्त पते क� रहने वाल� हू बच्चो के साथ RZB 80 New Roshan pura फू ल �संह राणा के मकांन म� 2 साल से बतौर �करायेदार रह रहे है। मेर� शाद� Sushil Kumar S/o चमनलाल R/o 103 old Roshanpura के साथ माचर् 91 मे हुई थी मेरे दो लड़�कयाँ है। मेरा प�त मुझको हम�शा कहता था �क दहेज कम लाई ँ और अपने प�त तथा हो और लाओ इसी बात पर मुझको हमेशा मारता पीटता था और घरेलू छोट� मोट� बात� पर भी मुझको मारता था और म� तुमको छोड दू ंगा आज समय कर�ब 5.30 बजे आज मेरा प�त अपने काम से आया और मुझको पीटना शुरु कर �दया म�ने 2 शी�श Emergency Light के �लए �दया बना कर रखी थी उसमे से �मट्ट� का तेल �छड़क कर मेरे ऊपर मा�चस क� �तल्ल� से मुझको जलाकर �पछले दरवाजा से भाग गया, म�ने शोर मचायी तो हमारे पडोस म� रहने वाले औरत� ने पानी डालकर आग बुझा द� उसके बाद म� Dr �नरंजन के पास चल� गई िजसने मुझको कहा क� आप PHC अस्पताल मे चलो जाओ म� �रक्शा करके PHC अस्पताल म� चल� गयी। PHC अस्पताल वाल� ने मुझको सफदरजंग अस्पताल भेज �दया। मेरे प�त के �खलाफ कारवाई क� जाये। ब्यान सुन �लया ठ�क है।“

4. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, Rukka endorsement Ex.PW-

17/A was made and the present FIR No. 341/1998 Ex.PW-9/A came to be recorded on 06.07.1998 at 12:20 am at PS Nazafgarh under Section 498A read with Section 302 IPC by PW-9 Constable Umed Rao. During the course of investigation, IO/PW-17 SI Jaggu Ram prepared the site plan Ex. PW-17/D and also called a private photographer at the spot and photographs were taken. On inspection of the place of occurrence, IO seized one jumper, matchsticks, and two bottles vide Memo Ex.PW-15/A and the same were kept in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:12.03.2025 16:01:04 CRL.A. 378/2002 pullanda and sealed with the seal of ‘JRB’. It is the prosecution case that matter was informed to the local SDM, namely, PW-6 Varsha Joshi who recorded the statement of the victim Ex.PW-6/A at 07:10 PM on 06.07.1998. 5. The victim was discharged from Safdarjung Hospital in a ‘satisfactory condition,’ as per the ‘Death Summary’ Ex. PW-7/7 on 09.07.1998. Thereafter, on 19.08.1998, at 10:56 AM, she was re-admitted to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment but unfortunately, on 24.08.1998, at 6:45 PM, she succumbed to her injuries, leading to the conversion of the case from an offense under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 302 IPC. Subsequently, at 10:20 PM, Constable Sunil, who was posted at Safdarjung Hospital, telephonically intimated P.S. Najafgarh regarding her demise, pursuant to which the said information was recorded as DD No. 73B Ex. PW-18/A. Thereafter on 25.08.1998, SDM Arun Kumar Mishra PW-7 conducted inquest proceedings Ex. PW-7/1-7 and later the post-mortem examination was conducted at 1:00 PM by PW-8 Dr. Arvind Thergaonkar, who opined that the cause of death was ‘septicaemia consequent upon 35-40% ante-mortem infected flame burns’ reflected in the post-mortem report dated Ex. PW-8/A. 6. During the ensuing investigation, the appellant was apprehended from his residence on 08.10.1998, and a personal search memo was duly prepared Ex. PW-11/A. Subsequently, on 11.12.1998, SI Madan Pal PW-5 undertook the preparation of a ‘Scaled Site Plan’ Ex. PW-5/A. Thereafter, on

22.12.1998, the final report was submitted before the Court, wherein it was recommended that the appellant, Sushil Kumar Raju, along with his mother, Kanta Rani, be subjected to trial for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, and 34 of the IPC, in conjunction with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:12.03.2025 16:01:04 CRL.A. 378/2002 Prohibition Act, 1961. Further, on 13.01.1999, the case properties were dispatched for forensic examination, and upon analysis, the CFSL report dated 17.03.1999 Ex. PX conclusively opined the presence of kerosene on the seized articles. PROSECUTION WITNESSES 7. On completion of investigation, formal charges were framed against the appellant as well his mother Smt. Kanta Rani on 27.07.1999 for committing offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 302 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 18 witnesses.

7.1 The main witnesses for the prosecution were the father and mother of the victim, namely PW-1 Mahinder Kumar and PW-2 Saroj respectively besides one neighbour PW-15 Naresh Kumar.

7.2 Medical/Expert Witnesses were: PW-4 Dr. R Ranjan, at PHC, who referred the victim to go to the hospital to get a proper treatment. PW16 Dr. Parag Neyog was the Sr. Resident in the Safdarjung Hospital, attended the injured initially and prepared the MLC Ex.PW16/A; PW-14 Dr. Rajeev Rajput was the junior resident in the Safdarjung Hospital, and he declared the victim ‘fit’ for recording of the statement at about 7:00 pm on 06.07.1998. PW-8 Dr. Arvind Therogaonkar, Chief Medical Officer, Safdarjung Hospital, he conducted the post- mortem on the body of the victim.

7.3 Formal/ Police Witnesses were: PW-17 SI Jaggu Ram commenced with the investigation of the case after receiving DD no. 26A Ex.PW17/A. PW12 Constable Naresh Pal accompanied PW-17 to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:12.03.2025 16:01:04 CRL.A. 378/2002 PHC, Najafgarh, Delhi. PW-6 was Ms. Varsha Joshi, SDM, who recorded the statement of the victim Ex.PW6/A, Anita at the Safdarjung Hospital upon the information received by PW-17. PW- 11 Inspector Kailash Chandra along with PW-18 SI Prabhu Dayal, arrested the accused, Sushil Kumar and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW-11/A. PW-7 was Arun Kumar Mishra, SDM, who was informed by the IO about the death of the victim, who succumbed to her injuries and thereafter conducted inquest proceedings. Needless to state that we shall delve into the details of the testimonies of these witnesses later on in the judgement. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C 8. On the closing of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he admitted to his marriage with the deceased Anita. However, he categorically denied ever subjecting Anita to cruelty or harassment on account of insufficient dowry. While he conceded that a complaint had been filed against him in the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Nanak Pura, he also stated that following a compromise, the deceased resumed normal cohabitation with him. The appellant denied all other incriminating evidence brought against him. He further disclaimed any knowledge regarding the deceased sustaining burn injuries, being taken to the hospital, suffering 35% burn injuries, or succumbing to septicaemia. Additionally, he denied any knowledge of kerosene oil residues being detected in the exhibits that were sent for forensic analysis. 9. The appellant has taken the defence that he is innocent and that a false case has been fabricated against him at the behest of PW-1 and PW-2 who Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:12.03.2025 16:01:04 CRL.A. 378/2002 tutored his deceased wife. In defence evidence, the accused elected to examine a total of 5 witnesses: DW-1 was Baby Shilpa, his seven year old daughter who testified that her mother had poured oil on herself and thereafter asked her to call the neighbourhood aunty; DW-2, Harbir Singh, a neighbour of the accused, testified that on 06.07.1998 at approximately 5:00–5:30 PM, while he was watching a film, DW-1 informed them that her mother was attempting to set herself on fire, and upon that he immediately proceeded to the accused’s residence, where he observed that the house was locked from inside and shortly thereafter the victim emerged out running and calling for help, and he along with other neighbours, intervened and assisted in extinguishing the flames, DW-3 Ramesh Chand, sabziwala, who testified that he along with the accused went to the Mandi to sell sabzi and at about 7:00 pm the accused’s younger brother informed them of an incident that had occurred at the accused's residence and the accused went back to his house with his younger brother; DW-4 Mahinder Singh, neighbour of the accused, corroborated the version of DW-2. DW-5 was Daulat Ram, a former Village Pradhan of Roshanpura, who testified that PW-1, Mahendar Kumar was not the biological father of the victim. He further stated that certain individuals approached him, requesting his intervention in facilitating a settlement, and indicated that they would alter their statements in exchange for monetary compensation. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT 10. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution held that there was history of marital discord between the deceased and the appellant, which fact was substantiated by the parents of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:12.03.2025 16:01:04 CRL.A. 378/2002 deceased,PW-1 & PW-2, and the defence version relying on the testimony of DW-1 Kumari Shilpa, daughter of the family, that the victim herself poured kerosine upon her and immolated herself was discarded in view of the abnormal behaviour of the neighbours, who stated that they arrived at the scene while the victim was engulfed in flames and crying for help. Learned Trial Court considered the fact that the victim herself went to the PHC on her own , with no one accompanying her or even calling the police. 11. Further, learned Trial Court found that the victim was ‘fit for making statement’ and she had given a statement to the attending doctor that she had been put on fire by her husband, which fact stood corroborated in the dying declaration made by the victim to PW-6 Varsha Joshi, SDM. It was held that the victim had no motive to falsely implicate her husband, and thus, holding that the death of the deceased occurred on account of injuries suffered consequent to the burn injuries, it was found that the prosecution has been able to bring the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the appellant was convicted for committing an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced accordingly for life imprisonment. However, both the appellant and his mother were acquitted of committing any offence under Section 498A of the IPC. SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 12. Mr. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that the two makeshift lamps, which were allegedly used to set the deceased ablaze, could not have been employed by the appellant in the manner suggested by the prosecution, thereby indicating a clear case of self-immolation and that it was urged that so called dying declaration of the victim, was not reliable in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:12.03.2025 16:01:04 CRL.A. 378/2002 terms of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the deceased at the time of making it was not under any kind of apprehension of death. 13. It was further argued that the sequence of events, as established from the record, demonstrates that the deceased initially proceeded to the neighbourhood, thereafter to the PHC, where the police were informed—and was subsequently taken to Safdarjung Hospital. Learned defence counsel highlighted that the deceased had been discharged from Safdarjung Hospital in a satisfactory condition, thereby casting doubt on the claim that the burn injuries were the direct cause of death. It was emphasized that PW-8 Dr. Arvind Therogaonkar, the Chief Medical Officer, Safdarjung Hospital, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the victim, in his cross-examination, acknowledged the possibility of survival in cases where burn injuries range between 35% to 40%, thereby further supporting the appellant's contention that the prosecution's version is not conclusive. 14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also emphasized that none of the medical documents, including the MLC report or the post-mortem report, contain any conclusive opinion from the medical experts affirming that the injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on decision in the case of Sanjay v. State of U.P.5; Prem Devi v. State 20176 and Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P7. 15. Per contra Mr. Bahri, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“APP”], has vehemently contended that the most crucial piece of evidence