Suseelan v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 CRL.A.No. 185 of 2005() ----------------------SC.203/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CP.105/1999 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-II, ADOOR .................... APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------- SUSEELAN, S/O.BALAN, CONVICT NO.8565, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.** **-----------------------------------------------------** ## **CRL.APPEAL No.185 OF 2005** **----------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 18[th] DAY OF AUGUST, 2008** ## **J U D G M E N T** Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in S.C.No.203/01. He was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The appellant/accused married Sobha, the daughter of PWs 1 and 2 on 12.9.1988. For some time, they resided with the father of the appellant and thereafter they built a thatched house in the same compound near the family house. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was promised to be paid as dowry. But, the parents of Sobha could pay only Rs.15,000/-. For non-payment of the balance amount, the accused was harassing his wife Sobha. Since the dowry demand was not met, on 19.6.1999, the appellant poured kerosene on the body of Sobha and set fire to her. She suffered severe burn **-2-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** injuries. So, she was hospitalised. She breathed her last on 2.7.1999. PW1 lodged Exhibit P1 first information statement with the Sub Inspector of Police, Koyippuram, PW18 on 21.6.1999 at about 2PM. Initially, Crime No.147/99 was registered under Section 498A and 307 of the IPC. Later, on the death of Sobha, report was filed by the Investigating Officer before the Magistrate's Court stating that the offence committed is under Section 302 IPC. PW20, the Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation. He completed the investigation and laid the charge before the J.F.C.M., Kozhencherry. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial which was made over for trial to the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. From the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 21 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P39 were marked. Material Objects MO1 to MO14 were produced and marked. After questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., DW1 was examined as defence witness. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides convicted and sentenced the accused. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr.Grashious Kuriakose, learned counsel who appeared for the appellant, raised the following grounds: (1) According to the learned counsel, after the admission of deceased Sobha in the hospital, she gave three **-3-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** versions regarding cause of burns on her body. At the time of admission, she told the Doctor PW16 that she sustained burn injuries by accident. A burning kerosene lamp fell on her, while she was reading. But, she told PWs 1, 2, 8 and 13 that the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her and therefore she suffered grievous burn injuries. But, to PW6, she told that she attempted to commit suicide and hence the burn injuries. In view of the above three versions regarding the reason for sustaining burn injuries, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. All these versions can be taken as her dying declarations which are contrary to each other. When there is more than one dying declaration, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused, it is stated. It is also submitted that having regard to the facts of the case, it is quite unsafe to find the appellant guilty without corroboration. The dying declaration alone cannot be the basis for conviction. (2) The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the father of the deceased PW1 lodged the first information before the police on the night of 20.6.1999. The **CRL.A.No.185/05** **-4-** incident took place on 19.6.1999. Next day itself, PWs 1, 2 and 8 visited the hospital. From the evidence of the above three witnesses, it is clear that they went to the police station on the said day itself and the police came to the hospital on the night of 20[th] June, 1999 and questioned the witnesses. But, Exhibit P1 FI statement is one recorded at 2 PM on 21.6.1999. So, the original first information statement has been suppressed. The version given by PW1 in the first information statement might have been different from the present case of the prosecution and therefore it was substituted by a fresh statement and the FIR was sent to the court implicating the accused. So, for not placing the correct facts regarding the lodging of the first information statement, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. (3) The incident narrated by the prosecution regarding the pouring of kerosene and burning the deceased is inherently improbable. The deceased is a well built , able bodied lady. She was not confined at the time of incident by the accused. There were three matches at the scene of **CRL.A.No.185/05** **-5-** occurrence. If the accused used those three matches to set fire to her, normally she will not stand there meekly and she would make her escape. So, the presence of three matches in the seen probabilise the case of suicide. Further, the father of the deceased, PW1 has stated that the accused used his cigarette lamp for setting fire to the deceased. So, the case of the prosecution on the above point lacks credence, it is submitted. (4) The learned counsel also pointed out that the motive proved by the prosecution for the commission of murder is non-payment of Rs.5,000/- towards dowry. The same in normal circumstances cannot be a ground for murder. The sequence of events narrated by the witnesses, including the murder and the accused going out, etc. would probabilise the case of the defence that it was a case of suicide. The motive proved in this case may be sufficient for suicide, but not for murder, it is pointed out by the learned counsel. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in _**Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993(2) SCC 684)**_ **,** _**P.Mani v. State of**_ **CRL.A.No.185/05** **-6-** _**T.N. (2006(3) SCC 161)**_ , _**Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008(5) SCC 468)**_ and also the decision in _**State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay D.Rajhans**_ _**(AIR 2005 SC 97)**_ in support of his submissions regarding the legal effect of more than one dying declaration. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Jai George supported the judgment of the trial court. The case of the defence regrading more than one first information statement has been dealt with by the trial court in paragraph 7 of the judgment rightly, it is pointed out. The learned Prosecutor also referred to the statement of PW2 in the re-examination wherein, the said witness has clarified that, the statement was given to the police only on 21.6.1999. The learned Public Prosecutor also brought to our notice the deposition of PW1, which would show that he does not remember the exact date on which the information was lodged. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the said witness further stated that they went to the police station along with PW8 on the third day of the incident. So, there is reliable evidence to show that the first information was lodged only on 21.6.1999. The learned Public Prosecutor also brought to our notice the statement of PW3 who is an independent witness concerning the presence of the accused at the time of **CRL.A.No.185/05** **-7-** occurrence. He has seen the accused going out from the house after the incident. It is also pointed out that while questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has set up a plea of alibi. The same is a plainly false case set up by the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve PW3's version that the accused was present at the time of occurrence. The learned Prosecutor also pointed out the conduct of the accused in not taking the victim to the hospital on sustaining burn injury by her. The same points an accusing finger against the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the deposition of PW7 (father of the accused) who has spoken that a portion of the dowry was remaining unpaid. Exhibit P16 is a document executed by the accused to take back deceased Sobha from her parental home. Sobha, because of the dowry harassment, had to take shelter in her parental home. The accused came there and in the presence of PW8, who acted as a mediator, gave a written undertaking in the form of Exhibit P16. In the said document, he has admitted the past ill-treatment of the deceased, it is submitted. The learned Prosecutor also took us through the evidence of PW6 wherein, she has stated that the reason for the injury was actually given by her, though the wound certificate would show that it was as given by the deceased. PW6 who is a near relative of the accused has stated before the Court **-8-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** that Sobha came out from her house crying, “I am being killed”, though the witness later corrected that she was crying out “save me”. If it was a case of suicide, she would not have ran out of the house crying for help. The evidence of PW6, according to the learned Prosecutor, therefore would show that it was not a case of suicide, but homicide. PW7, who is the father of the accused, has also spoken about Sobha running out of the house engulfed by fire. According to the Prosecutor, the above evidence would point to the guilt of the accused only. Any hypothesis, consistent with the innocence of the accused, can be safely ruled out from the evidence on record, it is submitted. The learned Public Prosecutor also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in _**Sher Singh v.**_ _**State of Punjab (2008(2) SCC(Cri.) 783)**_ in support of his submissions. There were three dying declarations in that case. But, the court acted upon one which was found to be truthful and which was made before the Judicial Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor also brought to our notice the decision of this Court in _**Muhammed v. State (1999 (3) KLT 948)**_ dealing exhaustively with the principles governing dying declarations. Going by the principles laid down in that decision, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the version given by the deceased before the learned Magistrate can be safely acted upon. **-9-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** 5. In answer to the above contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the re-examination of PW1, no question was put to him regarding his version that he went to the police station on the night of 20.6.1999. So, the submissions of the State on the above point has to be discarded, it is submitted. 6. We gave anxious consideration to the submissions of both sides. Before dealing with them, we would briefly refer to the evidence on record. PW1 is the father of deceased Sobha. He deposed that the marriage between Sobha and the accused took place on 12.9.1988. At the time of marriage, though the agreed dowry was Rs.20,000/-, he could pay only Rs.15,000/-. He also gave gold ornaments weighing 5 sovereigns. The accused and Sobha resided in the family house of the accused for some time. After about 3-4 months, they put up a thatched house. After three months, the accused started harassing his daughter and pressing her to get Rs.5,000/- from her parents. She was being physically manhandled and sent to her parental home. The accused used to kick and beat her demanding the balance dowry amount. Sobha came to PW1's house and told about the above incident. Later, Sobha while residing with her husband, was set on fire on 19.6.1999 at about 10 PM. It was a Saturday. On getting information that she is hospitalised with **-10-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** serious burn injuries, he along with his wife and near relatives went to the hospital. They saw her lying in the hospital with burn injuries on various parts of her body. He asked her daughter what happened. She told him that after quarreling for not paying Rs.5,000/- the accused poured kerosene and burned her. At that time, her daughter has not lost her consciousness. She was recognising people and talking to them. When he asked about the details of the incident, she told him that the accused demanded the balance dowry amount. He quarreled with her and thereafter went out. He came back after some time and called her affectionately to his side. But she did not go. Suddenly, kerosene was poured on her and she was set on fire using a cigarette lamp. She ran out crying. Thereupon, the father-in-law's sister and others came and poured water on her. She was taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw. The witness stated that the accused has burned his daughter with the intention of killing her. She was under treatment for 14 days. Finally, she died on 2.7.1999. Earlier, when quarrel arose between the accused and Sobha, she was sent home. Later, PW8 who is the local leader of the Communist Party interfered in the matter and an agreement was executed under which PW1 has agreed to pay the balance amount after the next harvest. He has lodged Exhibit P1 information before the police. **CRL.A.No.185/05** **-11-** He was subjected to extensive cross-examination by the defence. At one place in the cross-examination he has deposed that he went to the police station on 20.6.1999, though at another place he would say he does not remember the date and also that he went to the police station on the third day of the incident. PW2 is the mother of Sobha. She also deposed in tune with the statement of PW1. She has also deposed about the statement made by Sobha to her. According to her, Sobha told her that demanding the balance dowry amount, the accused picked up a quarrel with Sobha, manhandled her and went out of the house threatening to kill her. Later on coming back, he affectionately called Sobha to his side. But she did not go. While so, the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. She cried and rushed out of the house and thereupon the relatives of the accused poured water on her and put out the fire. She was taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw and admitted there. PW2 was also extensively cross-examined by the defence. In the crossexamination, she had spoken that the police came to the hospital on 20.6.1999. But in re-examination, she has stated that the police questioned her only on 21.6.1999. She would claim that she happened to make a wrong statement as she was upset on seeing the ornaments of her daughter. **-12-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** 7. PW3 is residing on the western side of the house of the accused. He knew the accused and his wife. The wife of the accused died of burn injuries. While she was reading a book the kerosene lamp fell on her and she suffered burn injuries. That was what was heard by him. On the date of incident he went to sleep before 9 O'clock. After 10 O' clock, on hearing a hue and cry, his wife roused him. He woke up and got out of his house. He saw Sobha, the wife of the accused lying in the courtyard of a relative of the accused. He went near to her. He saw burn injuries on both her hands. She was lying in the courtyard of the sister of the mother of the accused. Several people assembled there. Sobha was taken from there to the hospital in an autorickshaw. While Sobha was lying there, she was able to talk. At that time he saw the accused going out from his house. The accused was seen going to the nearby road. Since he disowned his statement before the police that the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire, he was declared hostile to the prosecution by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court and was cross-examined. 8. PW4 is residing in the neighbourhood of the accused. On the date of occurrence, while she was sleeping, she heard a hue and cry at about 10.45 p.m. That was on 19.6.1999. When she went out on **-13-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** hearing the sound, she saw the wife of the accused lying in the courtyard of PW6. She asked Sobha, what happened to her. She was told that the burn injury was caused by the falling of a burning lamp. She saw burns on the chest and stomach of Sobha. Some persons poured water on her and later, she was taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw. Since she deviated from her statement before the police regarding a quarrel between Sobha and the accused for non-payment of dowry, she was declared hostile to the prosecution by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court and was cross-examined. 9. PW5 is a relative of the accused. He is also residing in the neighbouring house. He stated that Sobha, the wife of the accused died a few years back. She died of burn injuries. Sobha came running to the house of the witness with fire on her clothes. PW5 and his mother came out of their house and went to the courtyard. They poured water on Sobha's body. Other people also came running. Sobha was taken inside their house and she was laid in a cot there. The witness went to call an autorickshaw. Sobha was taken to the hospital by his brother-in-law and others. He did not accompany Sobha to the hospital. He did not ask Sobha about the reason for the burns. His mother asked her. Thereupon Sobha told his mother not to ask anything. When Sobha was asked **CRL.A.No.185/05** **-14-** about the accused, she told them that he has gone for work. The witness disowned his statement before the police that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the date of occurrence. Therefore, he was declared hostile to the prosecution and was crossexamined. In cross-examination he has stated that the deceased came out crying “Ah! Please come (and help)”. 10. PW6 is the maternal grand mother of PW5. She is also the sister of the father of the accused. She has deposed that on 19.6.1999, Sobha came out of her house, crying 'save me'. She saw Sobha lying down. People poured water on her and put out the fire. She along with another took the injured to the hospital in an autorickshaw. There were burns on the face, chest and hands of Sobha. Initially, Sobha was taken to the nearby hospital and from there she was taken to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla. While in the hospital, the doctor asked her about the name and address of the injured. She gave the details, which were noted down by the doctor. The witness has also told the doctor how the burn injury was caused. She stated that she told the doctor that a lamp fell down and as a result the fire occurred. She also stated that when Sobha came running the accused was not there. He has gone for collecting sand. Sobha told her that she set fire by herself. Thereupon, the **CRL.A.No.185/05** **-15-** Prosecutor, with the permission of the court, declared her hostile and cross-examined her. In the cross-examination, she initially admitted that Sobha came running saying that she is being killed. Immediately, the witness corrected and said that Sobha came running, saying 'save me'. Ext.P16, which is an agreement executed by the accused was marked through the said witness. In Ext.P16 the accused admits his previous illtreatment of the deceased. Going by Ext.P16, it would show that the father of the deceased agreed to pay the balance dowry after the next harvest. 11. PW7 is the father of the accused. He also admits the execution of Ext.P16. When the accused and the deceased quarrelled and were living separately, Ext.P16 was executed, to which the witness is also a party. He identified his signature in that document. He also admits that he put his signature, knowing about the contents of that document. He also identified the signature of his sister PW6 and that of the accused in that document. He further admits that PW8 Krishnan Kutty did the mediation for arriving at that settlement. He heard that Sobha died because a burning kerosene lamp fell on her body and her clothes caught fire. He also deposed that he saw Sobha running with fire on her body. He denied the presence of the accused at the relevant time. Therefore, **-16-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** he was declared hostile to the prosecution by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court and was cross-examined. 12. PW8 is a coolie worker. At the relevant time he was the Kadambur Branch Secretary of CPI(M). He knew PW1 and his deceased daughter Sobha. Sobha was married to Suseelan, the accused. He participated in that marriage. To resolve the problems in their marital life, he had interfered. Sobha's father made a complaint to him. Based on that, he talked to Sobha. She told him that for not paying Rs.5000/-, which is the balance amount of dowry, she is being harassed and manhandled by the accused. He came to know that owing to the quarrel between them, Sobha has come to her parental house. Such quarrels took place on three occasions within a period of six months. Based on the complaint of Sobha's father, the witness went to the house of the accused. He talked to the accused and his relatives. Based on that Ext.P16 agreement was executed. He saw Sobha while she was in the hospital. She told him that Suseelan (accused) poured kerosene and set fire to her. She also told him that the said incident happened day before yesterday. He was also told by Sobha that the accused burned her using kerosene for non-payment of the balance dowry amount. The accused has done this to kill her intentionally, told Sobha to him. He was **CRL.A.No.185/05** **-17-** cross-examined extensively by the accused. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not go to the Koyipram Police Station on that day (the date on which he went to the hospital). He further stated that he has not gone to the Police Station along with PW1. The police questioned him while he was in the hospital. It appears, the same was done on 21.6.1999, submitted PW8. He denied the suggestion of the defence that because of political rivalry towards the accused, who was a member of a trade union affiliated to B.M.S., he was being falsely implicated in this case by PW8, who belongs to CPI(M). On Ext.P16, he was crossexamined extensively. But, he stood by his statement made in the chief examination. 13. PW9 is the witness to Ext.P26 scene mahazar. PW10 is the witness to Ext.P27 mahazar, as per which Exts.P16 and P22 were seized. PW11 is the witness to Ext.P28 mahazar seizing the gold ornaments of the deceased. PW12 is the witness to the inquest report Ext.P29. PW13 was, at the relevant time, the Judicial First Class Magistrate of Thiruvalla. She recorded the dying declaration of Sobha under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., a copy of which was marked as Ext.P30. It was recorded on 21.6.1999 at 3.40 p.m. She would depose that the statement was recorded in accordance with law. Before and after the recording of the **-18-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** statement, Sobha was examined by a doctor of the hospital, who certified that she was mentally fit to give the statement. The doctor who examined Sobha is PW21. 14. PW14 was, at the relevant time, the Tahsildar, who prepared Ext.P29 inquest report. PW15 was the Village Officer of Thottappuzhassery Village Office, who prepared the scene plan Ext.P31. PW16 is Dr.K.P.Nair. It was he who admitted Sobha in Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla. He has issued Ext.P31 Accident Register-cumWound Certificate. In the said certificate the cause of injury was shown as accidental burn. It was shown as the own statement of the injured. 15. PW17 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy and prepared Ext.P33 post-mortem certificate. He has deposed that the cause of death was infection arising from the burn injuries. PW18 was the Sub Inspector of Police at the relevant time, who recorded Ext.P1 FI Statement given by PW1 and registered Ext.P34 FIR. It was he who gave requisition to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla to record the dying declaration of the injured Sobha. He stated that the FIR was registered at 2.30 p.m on 21.6.1999. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he has suppressed the FI Statement given on 20.6.1999 and under the influence of PW8, he has falsely implicated the accused. PW19 was the **-19-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant time. At the early stages of investigation of the case, he has verified the investigation and has given instructions to the investigating officer. 16. PW20 is the investigating officer. At the relevant time, he was the C.I of Police, Kozhencherry. He took over the investigation of the case on 21.6.1999. On that day itself he prepared the scene mahazar Ext.P26. He seized a kerosene bottle, one box of matches and three burned matches under a mahazar. The kerosene bottle was marked as MO12. The box of matches was marked as MO13. The three burned matches were marked as MO14 series. The burned portions of Sobha's clothes found at the scene were recovered. The said material objects were marked as MO8 and MO9. He questioned the witnesses, completed the investigation and laid the charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The statements of the witnesses, who were declared hostile, made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were also proved through PW20. He was extensively crossexamined by the defence. He has stated that while preparing the scene mahazar Ext.P26, he did not see any kerosene lamp. He denied the suggestion that it was in fact a case of accident and he has falsely implicated the accused. The witness explained that the relatives of **-20-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** Sobha who brought her for treatment, to avoid registration of a crime, have stated that it was a case of accident. 17. PW21 is Dr.S. Aparna. At the relevant time she was the Casualty Medical Officer in Pushpagiri Hospital. On 21.6.1999 she examined Sobha and certified about the physical condition of that patient. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla recorded the dying declaration of Sobha on the said date. On examination, she found that Sobha was conscious and her mental condition was fit for making a statement before the Magistrate. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she did not do any clinical assessment of the state of mind of the patient. 18. The learned Additional Sessions Judge questioned the accused, based on the depositions of the witnesses. The accused gave his version and finally, he stated that when the incident happened, he was away and was collecting sand from Pamba river. He came to know of the incident only by 3 a.m. On coming to know of the incident, he went to the hospital and asked Sobha what happened. Sobha told him that she was lying down and reading a weekly. When she was turning the pages of the weekly, her hand hit against the lamp and the same fell on her body. He gave water to his wife as requested by her. He told his mother what **-21-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** Sobha told him. On the next day of the incident, the relatives of Sobha came. They started accusing him for the incident and they manhandled him. They also threatened to kill him. For fear of his life, thereafter, he did not go to the hospital. He was innocent. He was arrested and brutally manhandled by the police. He was a member of the B.M.S union. For that, PW8, who was a leader of the CPI(M), was harbouring ill-will towards him. 19. From the defence side one Mr.Sukumaran was examined as DW1. He was examined to prove the plea of alibi raised by the accused. DW1 was a co-worker of the accused and he deposed that on the fateful day they were together at the work site. 20. The following facts are undisputed in this case. Sobha, the wife of the accused suffered burn injuries while she was in her house at about 10.45 p.m. On 19.6.1999. She came out crying. P.Ws.5, 6 and others poured water on her body. She was taken to a nearby hospital and form there she was taken to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla on 21.6.1999 at 3.40 p.m. She died in the hospital on 2.7.1999 at 11.15 p.m. PW17, who conducted the post-mortem examination has given his opinion for the cause of death as 'died of **-22-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** infection following burns'. The above opinion is given in Ext.P33. The point that arises for decision is whether it was a human agency, which caused the burn injuries or it was an accident. Even if accident is not the reason for causing the injuries, it has to be further examined whether it was homicidal or suicidal. 21. First we will deal with the theory of the defence that it was a case of accident. The materials on record in support of this proposition are the following: The Accident-cum-Wound Certificate Ext.P32 shows the cause of burn injury as falling of a burning lamp while reading. The said certificate would further show that the said statement was given by the injured Sobha. PW4 has stated that Sobha told her that the burn injury was caused by the falling of a burning lamp. The trial court disbelieved the above version of the defence regarding the incident. Going by the materials on record, we fully agree with the trial Judge on this point. The post-mortem report shows the following injuries on the body of the deceased: “B. INJURIES (Ante-Mortem) 1. Infected dermo epidermal burns involving (a) all areas of face, (b) all areas of neck, (c ) all areas of chest and upper half of abdomen, (d) back of trunk up to a point 17 cm above the natal cleft, (e) both upper limbs, (f) front, inner and outer aspect of right thigh, (g) over an area 5x4 cm on the front of middle of thigh, (h) over an area 6x4 cm on the back of right **-23-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** ## thigh. 2. Surgical sutured cut down wound 3.5 cm long on the inner aspect of right leg 2 cm above the ankle. 3. Infected wound 3x1 cm on the inner aspect of left ankle.” If she was lying down and reading and thereupon the lamp fell down, immediately the light will be put out and she will become aware of the accident. By the time the fire starts, she will be able to put it out. Having regard to the nature of the injuries on the body noted in the postmortem report, it is inherently improbable that they were caused as a result of accidental fall of a small kerosene lamp, which would have been noticed by the deceased immediately. So, we reject the claim of the defence that it was a case of accident. The statement in the Accidentcum-Wound Certificate regarding the cause of injury stated to have been given by the deceased, cannot be believed to be the actual version of the deceased. At the relevant time, the deceased was a patient, who was suffering from 80% burn injury and must be reeling under excruciating pain. She was surrounded by the relatives of her husband only. She had to depend on them, even for a coup of water. PW6 in her deposition stated that it was she who told the doctor PW16 about the cause of the incident. She has stated as follows: “At the hospital the doctor asked me about the name, address etc. The doctor took down the information **-24-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** furnished by me. I told the doctor how the burn injury was caused. The doctor did not ask me how the burn was caused. I told the doctor that fire was caught from a lamp.” 22. The above statement would show that in fact it was PW6, who took the injured to the hospital, told the cause of injury to the doctor. The deceased, who was conscious, can only concur with PW6. So, the statement might have been recorded as the statement given by the deceased. PW20, the investigating officer has also spoken to regarding the above aspect. He stated that to avoid registration of a crime, the relatives of the accused made the statement regarding accident. PW17, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination has stated that the possibility of catching fire by accidental fall of a lamp, as suggested by the defence, was remote. He stated that such a possibility is rare. In view of the above materials also, we reiterate that this was not a case of accident. 23. The next point to be considered is whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. The injuries on the body of the deceased can be caused, if she pours kerosene on her body, lit matches and set fire to herself. But, the said possibility has to be examined in the light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The main piece of evidence to **-25-** ## **CRL.A.No.185/05** show that the injuries were not suicidal but homicidal, is the dying declaration made by the deceased before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla, PW13. The statement of Sobha is Ext.P30. PW21 has certified that the injured was in a fit condition of mind to give the statement. She has certified before and after the recording of the statement by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, about the above mental condition of the injured. The point to be considered is whether the injured has given a false statement to falsely implicate her husband. Normally, a person at the threshold of the next world will only speak the truth. But, the defence would point out that there are several declarations which could be treated as dying declarations. So, it will be quite unsafe to rely on Ext.P30, to sustain the conviction against the accused. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the face of several versions coming from the mouth of the injured regarding the reason for the injury, her statement before the Magistrate should also be disbelieved. The learned counsel pointed out that before PW16, the doctor, Sobha deposed that she sustained the burn injuries on account of the accidental fall of a kerosene lamp. But, to PW6, she told that it was an attempted case of suicide. We have already dealt with the **-26-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** statement of the deceased before PW16, which finds a place in the Accident-cum-Wound Certificate Ext.P32. In fact, it is a statement made by PW6, who took the injured to the doctor. PW6 is the aunt of the accused. She is hostile to the prosecution. Her statement before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C was proved through PW20, the investigating officer. Before the police, PW6 has stated that Sobha sustained the burn injuries because the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. A different version given by PW6 while in the box was not believed by the trial court, which had the occasion to see and watch the demeanour of the witness. So, we are of the view that the statement given by PW6 concerning the cause of burn injury cannot be believed or acted upon. 25. Yet another circumstance which may go against the theory of suicide, is the fact that the injured came out of her house, crying for help. If it was a case of suicide, normally, the person will not frantically come out, crying for help. Such persons will remain locked inside the room till death silences them. Even the hostile witnesses have spoken to that Sobha frantically come out from her house, crying for help and she readily accompanied the persons, who carried her to the hospital. Further, PW3 has spoken to about the presence of the accused in the **-27-** **CRL.A.No.185/05** house, immediately after Sobha came out crying for help. We find no reason to disbelieve the said statement of PW3. He is an independent witness, though he was treated as hostile to the prosecution for having retracted from some of his earlier statements before the police. The accused did not attempt to take the injured to the hospital. If it was a case of suicide, the accused would have been in the forefront to render assistance to her and to take her to the hospital. The evidence of PW3 would show that the plea of alibi raised by the accused is a false plea. It is a circumstance against the accused. From the above circumstances, we are of the definite view that the suggestion of the defence that it was a case of suicide has to be ruled out. 26. We also notice the decisions cited by both sides concerning the reliability of dying declarations. We are convinced that each case is decided based on the facts of that case. There is no rule of law which says that if there is more than one dying declaration, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused and he should be acquitted. In this case, we notice that the first statement before the doctor which finds a place in the Accident-cum-Wound Certificate, is, in fact, the statement of PW6. We are of the view, as mentioned earlier, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly disbelieved the version of PW6 regarding the cause of **-28-** ## **CRL.A.No.185/05** injury. If that be so, the only surviving dying declaration is the one recorded by PW13 as per Ext.P30. We find no reason to disbelieve the contents of that statement, which was properly recorded by the learned Magistrate. Going by the general principle laid down in the aforementioned decisions cited by both sides, we feel that the trial court has rightly relied on Ext.P30, to find the accused guilty. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the trial Judge. We also hold that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that it was the accused who caused the burn injuries on the body of his wife Sobha. So, he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the court below. In the result the Criminal Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ## K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. ## M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn **CRL.A.No.185/05 -29-** Mohammed v. State 1999 (3) KLT 948 Shersingh v. State of Punjab 2008(2) SCC Crl.783 (1993(2) SCC 684), 2006(3) SCC 161, 2008(5) SCC 468 State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay (AIR 2005 SC 97)