Delve into a recent criminal conviction case where the court’s legal analysis played a crucial role in upholding justice. The court’s meticulous evaluation of evidence and concurrent findings led to a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. Follow along as we explore the nuances of the legal reasoning that shaped the outcome of this case.
Facts
- The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
- Prosecution examined multiple witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant.
- Appellant denied the allegations and claimed he was falsely implicated due to a misunderstanding with the deceased.
- No witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant/accused.
- Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000 with a default clause.
- Case initially registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, later Section 302 was added upon the death of Pooja Rani.
- Other accused were discharged, and the charge was framed against the appellant.
- Police officials, including A.S.I. Ishwar Singh, went to J. P. Hospital where the deceased was declared fit to make a statement.
- Statement of the deceased, recorded by Judicial Magistrate, stated that the appellant poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze.
- Charge-sheet filed against the appellant and three others, including the deceased’s family members.
- The accused filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 05 September, 2016, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
- The appeal was filed in Session Case No.20 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge in Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.
- The appellant was aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No D-147-DB of 2010 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh against the conviction and sentence.
- The High Court, through its judgment and order dated 05 September, 2016, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Also Read: Analysis of Seniority Determination in Armed Forces Personnel Case
Arguments
- Argument by the petitioner’s counsel claiming that the conviction was based on a tutored dying declaration.
- Claim that the dying declaration was made at the instance of the deceased’s family members.
- Assertion that the appellant attempted to extinguish the fire when the deceased tried to commit suicide.
- Contention that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the accused’s guilt.
- Allegation of erroneous conviction under Section 302 of IPC by the Trial Court and its confirmation by the High Court without considering appellant’s grounds.
- The prosecution, represented by the learned Dy. A.G., asserts the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
- Deceased Pooja Rani’s statement recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ms. Kumud Gugnani implicated the appellant for pouring kerosene oil and setting her ablaze.
- Deceased’s statement was not tutored as family members were kept out during the recording.
- ASI Ishwar Singh and police officials found the deceased fit to make a statement despite 90% burn injuries.
- The overall evidence supports the prosecution’s case for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
Also Read: Interstate Prisoner Transfer: Court’s Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The material evidence presented clearly indicates the torture inflicted on the deceased by the appellant and his family members.
- The Magistrate stated that the deceased’s relatives were not present during the recording of the dying declaration.
- No witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant despite his claim that many neighbors were present during the incident.
- The Trial Court and the High Court both evaluated the evidence thoroughly, leading to concurrent findings.
- The ASI took steps to allow the deceased to make a dying declaration when she was in a condition to do so.
- The dying declaration stated that the appellant poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire.
- The charges against the appellant’s family members were discharged, but the appellant was found guilty based on the evidence.
- Presence of the deceased’s family in the hospital during the recording of the dying declaration does not invalidate its authenticity.
- The reasons stated by the High Court were found to be sufficient
- No error was committed in the impugned judgment and order
- There is no need to interfere with the decision in this Appeal
Also Read: Judicial Analysis on Conversation Authenticity and Enquiry Need
Decision
- The Criminal Appeal lacks merits
- The appeal has been dismissed
Case Title: SATPAL Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA SECRETARY HOME (2021 INSC 143)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000261-000261 / 2021
