Darshna Devi Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Darshna Devi Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence (rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-) affirmed; the accused is to be arrested to undergo the remaining part of sentence.

Issue for consideration

Whether the dying declaration of Balbir Chand (deceased) could safely be relied upon, given that it was recorded by a police officer and no doctor who certified him fit was examined. +3 more

Court's answer

Courts would normally be cautious before accepting a dying statement under Section 32 of the Evidence Act; in the instant case, since the statement was recorded by the police officer himself and no doctor was examined to substantiate that Balbir Chand was in a fit state of mind, an element of doubt crept in and this Court deemed it appropriate to examine the other evidence led by the prosecution instead of resting on the declaration.

Ratio / Principle

Even excluding the dying declaration, the prosecution case is fully established by the consistent, cross-examination-tested testimonies of PW-2 Shiv Dayal and PW-6 Sushil Kumar that accused Darshna Devi poured kerosene oil on Balbir Chand and had him set on fire by Pawan Kumar on her telling; the defence evidence does not inspire confidence, and this Court affirms the trial Court's finding that it is the accused Darshna Devi who murdered the deceased.

Key takeaways

The testimonies of DW-1 Ranjit Singh, DW-2 Manjit Singh and DW-3 Tejinder Singh (that the accused had gone to fetch her children from school and arrived after the incident) do not inspire confidence; notably, the accused was neither present at the preparation of the inquest report nor there to claim the dead body, which was handed over to PW-2 Shiv Dayal.ratio¶88
The eye-witness account is lent credibility because the statements of PW-2 Shiv Dayal and PW-6 Sushil Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 08.05.1999 itself, and DW-1 Ranjit Singh admitted that PW-6 Sushil Kumar is the immediate neighbourer of the accused.ratio¶93

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (CRA-D-388-DB-2004 (O&M), decided 02.05.2025; Gurvinder Singh Gill and Jasjit Singh Bedi, JJ.) dismisses the criminal appeal of Darshna Devi and affirms the judgment dated 24.11.2003 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana convicting her under Section 302 IPC for the kerosene-burning murder of Balbir Chand on 07.05.1999 (FIR No.188, P.S. Sadar Ludhiana, Sections 302/34 IPC), with rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-. Although the Court declined to rest the conviction on the deceased's hospital 'dying declaration' (Ex.PG) — recorded by ASI Sarup Singh himself at 11.50 PM on 07.05.1999, with no doctor examined to certify his fitness to make the statement, inviting judicial caution under Section 32 of the Evidence Act — it found the case 'fully established' by the consistent, cross-examination-surviving eye-witness testimonies of PW-2 Shiv Dayal (the deceased's companion/cousin) and PW-6 Sushil Kumar (immediate neighbour): Darshna Devi poured kerosene oil on Balbir Chand and told her son Pawan Kumar (a juvenile, dealt with separately by the Juvenile Justice Board) to set him on fire, which he did. Defence witnesses DW-1 Ranjit Singh, DW-2 Manjit Singh and DW-3 Tejinder Singh, who contended the accused was away fetching her children from school, were disbelieved: none had any Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded, none protested the alleged false implication, and the accused was absent at the inquest and did not claim the body. Post-mortem confirmed ante-mortem burns causing cardio respiratory arrest. The accused was ordered to be arrested to undergo the remaining part of sentence.

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 1 )

IN THE HI G H COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGA R H

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.05.2025

Darshna D e vi

… Appellant

Versus

State of Pu n jab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise , Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant.

Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punj a b.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

Darshna D e vi assails judgment dated 24.1 1 .2003 passed by learned Sessi o ns Judge, Lud h iana, vide which she has bee n held guilty of having commit t ed offence un d er Section 302 IPC and has b e en sentenced to undergo rigor o us imprisonm e nt for life and also to pay a fine amounting to Rs.10,000/-.

The matter arises out of FIR No.188 dat e d 08.05.1999 registered at Pol i ce Station Sa d ar Ludhiana, under Section 302 / 34 IPC (Ex.PG/2), at the insta n ce of Balbir C hand (deceased). The translate d gist of Balbir Chand’s statem e nt (Ex.PG) on the basis of which FIR was lod g ed reads as under:

“My m arriage was solemnized with D a rshna Devi. However, subseque n tly she d e veloped illicit relations with Gul z ari Lal, milk vendor, in whose ho u se we h a d been residing. We had then d ivorced each other. After divor c e, Gulz a ri Lal and Darshna Devi had co m e to my house and had threatened to kill m e. Out of our wedlock, a son na m ely Sharanvir was born. A few d a ys

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 2 )

back, Darshna Devi and Gulzari Lal se n t a message to him through Chu n di, who i s elder brother of Gulzari Lal, to t he effect that I should take away m y son Sharanvir. Today, I alongwith my cousin Shiv Dayal went to the ho u se of D a rshna Devi at Extension Basant V i har Mohalla. As soon as we reac h ed Dars h na Devi’s house she started quarr e ling and hurled abuses at me. W h ile I was standing under a verandah , Paw a n Kumar, son of Darshna Devi fr o m her p r evious marriage, pushed me and r e sultantly I fell on the ground. W h ile I was lying down, Darshna Devi poure d kerosene oil on me from a can a nd told h er son Pawan Kumar to set me o n fire. Pawan Kumar lit a match a nd set me on fire. I raised hue & cry. M y cousin Shiv Dayal extinguished t he fire by throwing sand and water on me. The incident was witnessed by o ne Sushil Kumar, who was standing on a n e arby roof. Upon alarm being rais e d, sever a l persons from the locality gath e red there. I was taken on a thr e e- whee l er to the Civil Hospital by my br o ther as well as by Darshna Devi on the a s king of residents of the locality. All this has been done by my w ife Dars h na Devi and by Pawan Kumar on the provocation of Gulzari L al. Dars h na Devi and Pawan Kumar had i n tended to kill me. My statement h as been r ecorded, which is correct. LTI – B albir Chand.”

The afores a id statement of Balbir Chand w as recorded in the Civil Hospi t al, Ludhiana b y ASI Sarup Singh, who had gone to the Civil Hospital upon receipt of i ntimation from the hospital a u thorities regarding admission of Balbir Cha n d in an injured condition. It m ay here be mentioned that w h ile Balbir Cha n d had been declared unfit at 5. 2 0 PM on 07.05.1999, but later at about 9.45 PM on the same very day, he w as declared fit to make statem e nt by the doct o r concerned vide endorsement Ex.PW-10/C and it was therea ft er that the aforesaid statement of Balbir Cha n d (Ex.PG) came to be recorded at 11.50 PM o n 07.05.1999 itself. ASI Saru p Singh thereafter went to the s p ot and prepar e d a rough site plan of the pla c e of occurrence. An iron can , a burnt shirt and a match box recovered from the spot were taken i n to possession. Statements of the witnesses w ere recorded in terms of Section

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 3 )

161 Cr.P. C . Balbir Chand could not su r vive and succumbed to the b u rn injuries th e next day i.e. on 08.05.199 9 at about 12.50 PM. Inqu e st proceeding s were conducted. The dead body of Balbir Chand was subjec t ed to post-mo r tem examination. Accused D arshna Devi and her son Pa w an Kumar wer e arrested on 11.05.1999.

Upon con c lusion of investigation, challa n was presented against accu s ed Darshna Devi and Pawan Kumar on 21.07.1999 in the Court of lear n ed Judicial M a gistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, w h o committed the case to the Co u rt of Sessions vide order dated 14.08.1999. S ince accused Pawan Kumar wa s a juvenile, h e was proceeded against sepa r ately before the Juvenile Just i ce Board. Le a rned Sessions Judge, Ludhian a framed charges against accu s ed Darshna D e vi on 30.08.1999 for offence p unishable under Section 302 I P C, to which s h e pleaded not guilty and claime d trial.

The prosec u tion in order to establish its c a se examined as many as 11 P W s. The gist of t heir testimonies is being briefl y referred to herein under:-

PW-1 Dr. Jasbir Singh, Medical Officer, C ivil Hospital, Ludhiana, who h ad co n ducted post-mortem examinat i on on the dead body of Bal b ir Ch a nd on 08.05.1999, proved the p ost-mortem report as Ex.PA. H e sta t ed that as per his opinion the c ause of death was due to car d io res p iratory arrest as a result of e x tensive burns resulting in sho c k, wh i ch was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

PW-2 Shi v Dayal, who is an eye-witness, stated identically with the version got recorded by Balbir Chand (dec e ased) to the police on the basis of wh i ch FIR came to be lodged.

PW-3 An i l Kumar, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared a scaled site p l an of t h e place of occurrence and prov e d the same as Ex.PE.

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 4 )

PW-4 HC Charanjit Singh stated that on 08.05.1999, he was posted at P.S. Sal e m Tabri, Ludhiana and was as s ociated with ASI Sarup Singh f or the purpose of investigation of th e present case. He stated that o ne iro n container, one half burnt shirt a nd one match box were recove r ed fro m the spot in his presence and th at he had signed on the recov e ry me m os.

PW-5 Co n stable Surinder Singh, who i s a formal witness, tendered i n to evi d ence his affidavit Ex.PW-5/ A , wherein he deposed that on 08. 0 5.1999, ASI Manjit Singh afte r preparing the special reports h ad ha n ded over the same to him, w hich he delivered to the Ill a qa Ma g istrate and to other higher offi c ers and that as long as the reports re m ained in his possession, the sa m e were not tampered with.

PW-6 Su s hil Kumar, who is another e y e-witness, stated that his ho u se adj o ins the house of accused D a rshna Devi. He stated that on 07. 0 5.1999 at about 1.30 PM, wh e n he was taking lunch, he he a rd noi s e from the house of Darshna D evi and at that time Balbir Ch a nd (de c eased) and Darshna Devi (acc u sed) were abusing each other. H e als o stated identically as regards p ouring of kerosene oil on Bal b ir Ch a nd by Darshna Devi (accuse d ) and that Pawan Kumar ligh t ed ma t ch stick and set Balbir Chand o n fire. He further stated that S h iv Da y al, brother of Balbir Chand, w ho was standing nearby, pou r ed wa t er and sand on Balbir Chand an d extinguished the fire.

PW-7 AS I Manjit Singh stated that on 0 8 .05.1999 while he was posted in Pol i ce Station Sadar, Ludhiana, ru q a Ex.PG was received on the basis of w hich he recorded formal FIR ( E x.PG/2) under his signatures.

PW-8 Pre m Kumar, Mechanic in Punja b Roadways, Ludhiana stated t h at ap a rt from identifying the dead bo d y of Balbir Chand, he attested t he inq u est report Ex.PE prepared in h is presence and that his statem e nt wa s also recorded by the police.

PW-9 Av t ar Singh, Sub Inspector, Punja b Roadways, Ludhiana, stated t h at he was President of Punjab Sta t e Employees Union, Roadw a ys

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 5 )

De p artment and that Balbir Cha n d (deceased) was a mechanic in Pu n jab Roadways, Ludhiana. He stated that on 08.05.1999, he w as pre s ent at the Civil Hospital, L udhiana and that Balbir Ch a nd dis c losed to him that he had s o lemnized second marriage w i th Da r shna Devi and out of said mar r iage, a son namely Sharanvir w as bor n . He stated that Balbir Chand f urther told him that Darshna D e vi als o had a son from her earlier m a rriage and that Darshna Devi h ad no w developed illicit relations wit h Gulzari Lal on account of wh i ch the marriage between them i.e. Ba l bir Chand and Darshna Devi, w as dis s olved by divorce. PW-9 furth e r stated that Balbir Chand and h is co u sin Shiv Dayal had gone to the house of Darshna Devi in Bas a nt Vi h ar, Ludhiana and when they r e ached there, then Pawan Ku m ar ga v e Balbir Chand a push as a res u lt of which he (Balbir Chand) f ell do w n and Darshna Devi poured k e rosene oil on him and told Pa w an Ku m ar to set him on fire.

PW-10 AS I Sarup Singh, who had recorded the statement of Balbir Ch a nd (de c eased) on the basis of which F I R in question was lodged and h ad als o conducted the initial investig a tion of the case including inqu e st pro c eedings, stated in detail with regard to the same. He furt h er sta t ed that subsequently the invest i gation of the case was taken o v er by S HO Gurmit Singh.

PW-11 Ins p ector Gurmit Singh, who had conducted the remaining inv e stigation of the case, stated with regard to the same. H e spe c ifically stated that he has ar r ested Darshna Devi and Pa w an Ku m ar on 11.05.1999 and that up o n completion of investigation of the case, the accused have been ch a llaned.

Upon clos u re of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Dars h na Devi was r ecorded in terms of Section 3 13 Cr.P.C., wherein apart fr o m denying th e entire case of prosecution a n d pleading false implication, s he stated that s he was arrested from the hospit a l soon after she had shifted Bal b ir Chand the r e, whereas her son was arres t ed two days thereafter. In h er

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 6 )

defence, t h e accused examined as man y as 4 DWs. The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to here i n under:

DW-1 Ra nj it Singh stated that he knew a ccused Darshna Devi, as she a nd Bal b ir Chand (deceased) used to li v e in his locality. He stated that on 07. 0 5.1999 at about 12.45 PM (n o on), when he was present in h is hou s e, he heard cries of Balbir Cha n d. He stated that after coming o ut of h is house, he saw that Balbir Ch a nd had caught fire and was crying in t h e street ( gali ). He further stat e d that accused Darshna Devi w as not present in the house. He f urther stated that when all t he nei g hbourers were in the process o f extinguishing fire, then accu s ed Dar s hna Devi alongwith her two children came there, as she had g o ne to b ring her children from the sc h ool. He further stated that a ft er arranging a three wheeler, all the n e ighbourers and Darshna Devi took Bal b ir Chand to Civil Hospital, Lu d hiana.

DW-2 Ma n jit Singh stated that he knew a c cused Darshna Devi, as she li v ed in h is neighbourhood with her hus b and Balbir Chand. He stated t h at on 0 7.05.1999 at about 12.45 PM ( noon), he heard noise in front of Bal b ir Chand’s house. He stated that he saw that house of Bal b ir Ch a nd was lying open and accuse d Darshna Devi was not there. H e stat e d that he alongwith other nei g hbourers extinguished the fire by put t ing clothes on Balbir Chand and during that time, accu s ed Dar s hna Devi alongwith her tw o children, who were in sch o ol uni f orm, came there.

DW-3 Tej i nder Singh stated that he knew accused Darshna Devi and that he use d to run a dairy farm at a d i stance of about 100 yards fr o m Dar s hna Devi’s house. He stat e d that on 07.05.1999 at ab o ut 12. 0 0/1.00 PM (noon), when he w as present in his dairy farm, he hea r d a noise commotion which w as being raised by 20-25 pers o ns out s ide the house of Darshna Devi . He stated that he rushed to t h at pla c e and saw the husband of Dars h na Devi engulfed in flames, as h is clot h es had caught fire and he w a s crying in the courtyard of h is hou s e. He further stated that Dar s hna Devi was not present in t he

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 7 )

hou s e, as she had gone to fetch he r children from the school and t h at she had come to the place of occurr e nce after 20/25 minutes.

DW-4 Dr. Subash Batta, Medical Officer, C ivil Hospital, Ludhiana, who h ad bro u ght the bed head ticket in respect of Balbir Chand (decease d ), pro v ed the same as Ex.DW-4/A. He stated that as per entry da t ed 07. 0 5.1999 at 5.20 PM, the patient was not fit for making stateme n t. He f urther stated that the patient e x pired at 12.10 PM on 08.05.1999 due to cardiac respiratory arrest du e to shock. DW-4 after seeing end o rsement Ex.PW-10/C wherein it is recorded that the patient w as fit t o make statement at 9.45 PM on 07.05.1999, stated that m o st pro b ably the said endorsement h a d been made by Dr. Gurcha r an Mo n gia and that there is no entry o f this endorsement in the bed h e ad tick e t Ex.DW-4/A.

The learne d trial Court, upon marshallin g the evidence brought on reco r d, held that t h e prosecution had fully established the charges framed agai n st accused Darshna Devi and consequent l y, held her guilty for having committed o ffence under Section 302 IPC v ide impugned judgment, whic h is under chall e nge before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant, while a ssailing the impugned judgme n t, submitted t hat the trial Court fell in err o r while relying upon the ‘dying declaration ’ allegedly made by Balbir Cha n d (deceased), whereas it is a c a se where the fitness of Balbir Chand (de c eased) to make a statement is questionable inasmuch as neither his state m ent is said to have been recor d ed by any M a gistrate nor even the Doctor, who had found him fit to m a ke statement, h as been examined and that und e r these circumstances, it is uns a fe to rely up o n such type of ‘dying decla r ation’. Learned counsel furt h er submitted that although the case of p r osecution is that Balbir Ch a nd (deceased) as well as accused Darshna De v i had dissolved their marriage by

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 8 )

divorce an d that they were living separatel y , but no document regarding s u ch divorce has been brought on record and in f act the witnesses examined by t he accused i.e. DW-1 to DW-3 have stated to t he contrary and have categorica l ly stated that the deceased and the accused were residing together. Lear n ed counsel fur t her submitted that it could per h aps be a case where the decea s ed had commi t ted suicide and in the absence of any evidence to show that t he accused h a d abated the commission of s uicide, she cannot even be h e ld responsible for the death of the deceased. It has further been submitted t h at the very fa c t that Darshna Devi is present i n the hospital would also go a long way to show that she had not committed t he offence and that apparentl y it was a case o f accidental death or suicide.

Opposing t h e appeal, learned State counse l submitted that it is a case wh e re the case o f prosecution is supported by t w o eye-witnesses i.e. PW-2 S h iv Dayal and P W-6 Sushil Kumar and as suc h , even if the dying declaratio n is not taken i n to account, the case of prose c ution would otherwise also st a nd substantiat e d.

We have c o nsidered rival submissions ad d ressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also p erused the record of the case.

Before pro c eeding further, it is apposite to first of all refer to the medi c al evidence l e d by the prosecution as rega r ds the unnatural death of Bal b ir Chand (deceased) i.e. by way of burning. T he dead body was subjected to t he post-morte m examination, which was c o nducted by PW-1 Jasbir Sin g h, Medical O f ficer, Civil Hospital, Ludhia n a, who while proving the postmortem re p ort as Ex.PA, opined as regards cause of death as under:

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 9 )

“… … ……The cause of death in this c a se in my opinion was due to car d io respi r atory arrest as a result of extensi v e burns resulting in shock suffici e nt to ca u se death in ordinary course of n a ture. The burns were ante mort e m. Stitc h ed dead body and PMR were han d ed over to the police, police paper s 1 to 24 duly signed by me. Probable ti m e that elapsed between injuries a nd death about 24 hours and between deat h and post mortem examination ab o ut 4 to 6 hours. Ex.PA is the correct car b on copy of the original post mort e m repor t of Balbir Chand……….”

Although t h e aforesaid witness was briefl y cross-examined on behalf of t he accused, b u t nothing substantial could be e licited during the course of cro s s- examinatio n so as to either doubt his ver a city or his opinion as regards t he cause of de a th.

It is the s p ecific case of the prosecution that the FIR was lodged on t he statement of Balbir Chand (deceased) himself, which was stated to have b e en recorded i n the Civil Hospital on 07.05.1 9 99 i.e. on the day of occurre n ce itself. PW-10 ASI Sarup Singh had proc e eded to the Civil Hospital upon receipt of i n formation regarding admission of Balbir Chand in the hospital in an injured c ondition i.e. on account of bu r n injuries. PW-10 stated that he had sough t opinion of the SMO, Civil H ospital, Ludhiana regarding t he condition o f the injured to make stateme n t, but the Doctor declared Bal b ir Chand un fi t to make statement at 5.20 PM on 07.05.1999. However, subsequent l y, when PW-10 ASI Sarup Sin g h again went to the Civil Hospital later in the evening, Balbir Chand was decl a red fit at 9.45 PM for the purp o se of making s tatement and consequently, his statement came to be recorded at 11.50 PM, t he same night.

While in t e rms of Section 32 of the Evi d ence Act, a statement made b y a person in a nticipation of his death could be taken into account, but at t he

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 10 )

same time, the Courts would normally be a little cautious before accepting such state m ent. In the instant case, the st a tement has been recorded by t he Police Offi c er himself. No Doctor has bee n examined to substantiate the f a ct that Balbir Chand was in a fit state of m ind at the time of recording h is statement. Since an element of doubt h as crept in, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the other evide n ce led by the prosecution f or substantiati n g its case.

The prosec u tion mainly banks upon the te s timonies of PW-2 Shiv Dayal and PW-6 Sus h il Kumar. While PW-2 Shi v Dayal had accompanied Bal b ir Chand (de c eased) to the house of acc u sed, PW-6 Sushil Kumar is a neighboure r of the accused, who claims to h ave seen the occurrence from t he roof top u p on being attracted by the noise commotion. PW-2 Shiv Da y al while in th e witness-box categorically stat e d that he had accompanied Bal b ir Chand to t h e house of accused Darshna De v i on 07.05.1999, as Balbir Ch a nd and Darsh n a Devi had been residing sep a rately on account of differen c es having cro p ped up between them. He stat e d that they had gone to the ho u se of the accu s ed for the purpose of getting al o ng with them the son of deceas e d, who had b een born from the wedlock o f accused Darshna Devi and t he deceased. He further stated that on 07.0 5 .1999, when he alongwith Bal b ir Chand rea c hed the house of accused Darshna Devi, she started quarreling with Balbir Chand and that in the meantim e , Pawan Kumar, a son of Dars h na Devi from her earlier marriage, pushed B albir Chand as a result of wh i ch Balbir Cha n d fell down. He further stat e d that thereafter accused Dars h na Devi poure d kerosene oil on Balbir Chand and told her son Pawan Kumar to set him on fire and accordingly Pawan Ku m ar lighted a match and set Bal b ir

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 11 )

Chand on f ire. He further stated that he c ollected some sand and threw t he same on B a lbir Chand and also poured so m e water on him and raised ala r m, which attr a cted some persons of the loc a lity and thereafter, he alongw i th some other persons from the locality took B albir Chand to the Civil Hospi t al. He further stated that accused Darshna D e vi also accompanied them to t he Civil Hosp i tal on his asking. To a simil a r effect is the statement of P W -6 Sushil Ku m ar, who stated that his hou s e adjoins the house of accu s ed Darshna D e vi and that on 07.05.1999 at about 1.00 PM when he was pres e nt in his hous e , he heard noise commotion fr o m the house of Darshna Devi and that accuse d Darshna Devi and Balbir Ch a nd (deceased) were abusing e a ch other. He further narrated the incident regarding Pawan Kumar having pushed Bal b ir Chand and Darshna Devi ha v ing poured kerosene oil on Bal b ir Chand and thereafter Pawan Kumar hav i ng lighted a match stick on t he asking of h i s mother (Darshna Devi) and s e t Balbir Chand on fire. Both t he eye-witnes s es i.e. PW-2 Shiv Dayal and PW-6 Sushil Kumar were cro s s- examined a t length, but nothing substant i al could be elicited during th e ir cross-exam i nations so as to create any dent in the case of prosecution.

Learned c o unsel for the appellant, howe v er, referred to the testimonies of DW-1 Ran j it Singh, DW-2 Manjit Singh a nd DW-3 Tejinder Singh so as to contend th a t as a matter of fact Darshna D evi was not present in the ho u se when the o c currence had taken place and h a d reached there after the incide n t. A perusal o f the testimonies of DW-1 Ran j it Singh, DW-2 Manjit Singh a nd DW-3 Teji n der Singh shows that all of the m stated to the effect that Dars h na Devi had c o me to the place of occurrence after the incident had taken pl a ce and that sh e had gone out to pick up her c h ildren from the school. However,

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 12 )

interestingl y neither she was present at t h e time of preparation of inqu e st report nor s he was there to claim the dead body of Balbir Chand, which w as handed ov e r to PW-2 Shiv Dayal, cousin of Balbir Chand. Further, in h er statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Darshna D e vi has not co m e out with any explanation w ith regard to the death of Bal b ir Chand in h er house. The testimonies o f aforesaid DWs do not insp i re confidence inasmuch as although they cl a imed to be the residents of t he locality an d were attracted to the place of o c currence, but still no statement of any of the m was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. So m u ch so, DW-1 R anjit Singh during the course of his cross-examination stated t h at he did not ask Balbir Chand as to how he had caught fire. He furt h er admitted that he did not tell anything to the police when police had come to investigate the case and had never even lo d ged any protest with the police f or - having imp l icated Darshna Devi falsely. He has, however, admitted that P W 6 Sushil K u mar is the immediate neighbo u rer of the accused. Even D W -2 Manjit Sin g h stands on identical footing i n asmuch as he stated that he ne v er saw the pol i ce coming in the mohalla for t h e purpose of investigation and t h at he never disclosed to the police that he ha d seen the occurrence and had n ot lodged an y protest regarding false impli c ation of Darshna Devi. D W -3 Tejinder Si n gh also stated during his cros s -examination that neither he w e nt to the police nor the police ever called hi m and that he did not disclose th e se facts to the police and in fact he was not o n talking terms with Balbir Ch a nd (deceased), as he was a drunkard. Th e aforesaid witnesses have, th u s, apparently come forward in support of t he accused Darshna Devi being

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 13 )

residents o f the same locality though they h ad not seen the occurrence. Th e ir testimonies, as such, do not inspire confide n ce.

On the oth e r hand, the prosecution version stands substantiated from the e y e- witness ac c ount in the shape of PW-2 Sh i v Dayal, who was present in t he house of a c cused itself where the occurre n ce had taken place and also fr o m the statem e nt of PW-6 Sushil Kumar, w h o is immediate neighbourer, who had seen t he occurrence. The factum of PW-6 Sushil Kumar being immediate n eighbourer of accused Darshna Devi is also admitted by D W -1 Ranjit Singh. The fact that their statemen t s under Section 161 Cr.P.C. w e re recorded o n 08.05.1999 itself also lends credibility to their statements.

The collec t ive effect of the aforesaid dis c ussion is that even if the dying declaration is not taken into account, stil l the case of prosecution is fu l ly established from the consistent testimonie s of PW-2 Shiv Dayal and P W -6 Sushil Ku m ar, who have stated consistent l y to the effect that while accu s ed Darshna D e vi had poured kerosene oil o n Balbir Chand (deceased), Bal b ir Chand (de c eased) had been set on fire by P awan Kumar having been told to do so by t h e accused Darshna Devi. As s u ch, in view of the said consist e nt testimonies, which have survived the te s t of cross-examination and a l so keeping in view that the defence evidenc e does not inspire confidence, t h is Court does not have any hesitation in affir m ing the findings of the trial Co u rt to the effe c t that it is the accused Dars h na Devi, who had murdered t he deceased a n d the same are hereby affirme d . Finding no merit in the app e al, the same is hereby dismissed.

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRA-D-388-DB-2004 ( O&M)

( 14 )

A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necess a ry compliance.

The accuse d be arrested to undergo the remaining part of sentence.

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE

02.05.2025 Vimal

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the dying declaration of Balbir Chand (deceased) could safely be relied upon, given that it was recorded by a police officer and no doctor who certified him fit was examined.¶78
The court held
Courts would normally be cautious before accepting a dying statement under Section 32 of the Evidence Act; in the instant case, since the statement was recorded by the police officer himself and no doctor was examined to substantiate that Balbir Chand was in a fit state of mind, an element of doubt crept in and this Court deemed it appropriate to examine the other evidence led by the prosecution instead of resting on the declaration.ratio¶78
2.
Whether the prosecution case of murder by Darshna Devi stands established even without the dying declaration, on the testimony of eye-witnesses PW-2 Shiv Dayal and PW-6 Sushil Kumar.¶94
The court held
Even excluding the dying declaration, the prosecution case is fully established by the consistent, cross-examination-tested testimonies of PW-2 Shiv Dayal and PW-6 Sushil Kumar that accused Darshna Devi poured kerosene oil on Balbir Chand and had him set on fire by Pawan Kumar on her telling; the defence evidence does not inspire confidence, and this Court affirms the trial Court's finding that it is the accused Darshna Devi who murdered the deceased.ratio¶94
3.
Whether the defence witnesses (DW-1 Ranjit Singh, DW-2 Manjit Singh, DW-3 Tejinder Singh) establish that the accused was not present in the house when the occurrence took place.¶84
The court held
The testimonies of DW-1 Ranjit Singh, DW-2 Manjit Singh and DW-3 Tejinder Singh (that the accused had gone to fetch her children from school and arrived after the incident) do not inspire confidence; notably, the accused was neither present at the preparation of the inquest report nor there to claim the dead body, which was handed over to PW-2 Shiv Dayal.ratio¶88
4.
Whether the death of Balbir Chand was homicidal at the instance of the accused rather than accidental or suicidal.medium confidence¶64
The court held
The post-mortem opinion of PW-1 Dr. Jasbir Singh — death due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of extensive (ante-mortem) burns resulting in shock, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature — was accepted, nothing substantial having been elicited in cross-examination to doubt his veracity or his opinion as regards the cause of death.ratio¶72