Twitter
Advertisement

Dying statement should be in Q&A form, says Delhi court

The observation was made by Additional Sessions Judge Vivek Kumar Gulia while hearing a case in which one Manisha had said in her dying declaration that her husband Raj Kumar had tried to burn her after dousing her with petrol from a scooter.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

A Delhi court has questioned the format of recording dying declarations, saying 'Unless the dying declaration of a victim is in question and answer form, it is very difficult to know as to what extent the answers have been suggested by questions put'. In doing so, the court also acquitted a murder suspect accused of burning his wife.
 
The observation was made on May 11 by Additional Sessions Judge Vivek Kumar Gulia while hearing a case in which one Manisha had said in her dying declaration that her husband Raj Kumar had tried to burn her after dousing her with petrol from a scooter.
 
During the trial, however, several loopholes in the dying declaration came to the fore. The court observed that the declaration had been recorded in the language normally used by the police officials for recording statements under Section 161 of CrPC, which is used for eyewitness accounts.
 
“The court needs to be convinced fully that the statement of the deceased was not a result of tutoring, prompting or product of imagination. Unless the dying declaration is in the question and answer form, it is very difficult to know what extent the answers have been suggested by the questions put,” ASJ Gulia said.  
 
The court also found that the declaration was not recorded before a Magistrate, a gazetted police officer, or presence of two or more reliable witnesses unconnected with the police department, as is mandated by the law.
 
Kumar had denied all the allegations, saying he was being falsely implicated by the Medical Officer Anil Yadav and Sub Inspector Satish Kumar for refusing to pay a bribe. He claimed he had been working in the adjoining field and the scooter from which he was being accused of getting petrol had been lying abandoned for a number of days before the incident.
 
The court questioned the role of SI Kumar, who failed to mention whether the declaration was read over or seen by the deceased. As a result, the court said, that ‘dying declaration in the case in hand does not seem to be the reproduction of original facts, which might have been disclosed by the deceased’.
 
The accused added that ‘his wife was suffering from mental disease and there has been a suicidal tendency in her family’. According to Kumar, he had tried to save his wife, suffering burns himself in the process. The statement of the uncle and the brother of the deceased stated that this fact was established by a doctor to whom the deceased was taken in 2011 with complaints of suicidal thoughts, loss of sleep, headache etc. 
 
According to the declaration given by the deceased, the couple were married since 11 years and her husband used to beat her since beginning. On February 1, 2013, the accused allegedly quarrelled with her and beat her. On hearing the noise, her brother-in-law Sajan Kumar came to her rescue. Minutes later, the husband returned with petrol from his scooter and sprinkled it over the wife and set her on fire. 
 
Considering several loopholes in the prosecution’s version, the court concluded that the deceased was not willing to give any statement and that her dying declaration was ‘manipulated’.
 
“The dying declaration does not disclose any plausible reason for committing the serious offence of murder, as it only mentions that the accused used to torture or beat the deceased. It is silent as to why the quarrel took place between the deceased and her husband soon before the incident.
 
“It is difficult to believe that a husband would kill his wife only because of routine quarrel. In the disclosure statement of the accused, it has come that he killed his wife because she of loose character, but no investigation was carried in this regard,” the court observed.
 
The judge also said that SI Kumar did not attempt to get the deceased’s statement recorded through any Executive Magistrate over the seven days that she was in hospital after the incident, thus flouting the rules without any justification.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement