# JASW ANT SINGH v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 777
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-09-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 346 C of 1974
- **Bench:** Jaswant Singh, P. S. Kailasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jasw-ant-singh-v-state-delhi-admn-7534
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Evidr11cc-Circun1stantial evidence, value of, in sustaining co1n·iction-Dying
<leclaration not recorded by a Magistrate 1nusf be scrutinised closely.
The appellant stood charged for trial under s. 302 of the I.P.C. for having
·caused the death of his wife by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting her clothes
to fire.
The Addl. Sessions Judge relying on the dying declaraition which was
corroborated by the circumstantial evidence of the narration about the incident
by the deceased to her parents PW-I and PW-2 just before her death, tound
him guilty of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to
life imprisonment. The appeal preferred by the appellant to the High Court
having proved abo1tive, the appelJant came up before this Court by special
·ieave.
Dismissing the appeal the Court,
!-!ELD : { 1) The circumstantial evidence in order to susta>in conviction must
be complete and must be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis
other than that of guilt of the accused.
[781C-D]
(2) The dying declaration which is not recorded by a Magistrate has to
A
B
c
D
be scn1tinised closely, but it is well settled that if the Court is satisfied on a
E
cl05e scrutiny Of the dying declaration that it is truthful it is open to the
Court to convict the accused on its basis without any independent corroboration.
[781DJ
Khushal Rao v. The State of Bombay, [1958] SCR 552; Lallubhai Dcvchand
Shah & Ors. v. The Stat~ of Gujarat, [1971] 3 SCC 767; Vithal Sanuiath Kore
v. State of Maharashtra, [1978] I S.C.C. 622, referred to.
F
(3) (a) In the instant C&Se there is no direct evidence regarding the guilt
of the appellant and the prosecution case rests wholly on the circumstantial
-evidence and the dying declarations made by the deceased before the SubInspector Din Dayal and Roshan PW-I and Phool Vati PW-2.
[781B-CJ
(b) On a careful consideration of the evidence it is clear that the dying
cdeclaration Ext. PW 21/F, the genuineness of which is verified by Dr. Avtar
Singh Gill PW-18 is truthful and e-0nvincing and it cannot be brushed aside
merely on the ground that it was not recorded by a Magistrate especially when
it was recorded by Sub-Inspector Din Dayal in the presence of the duty doctor
viz. Artar Singh Gill at the time when the deceased was in great agony and
the life in her was fast ebbing away. The testimony of the parents of the
·<l•eeased viz. Roshan P.W. 1 aod Phool Vati PW-2 also lends strong corrobora-
·tion to tho dying declaration. They have categorically stated that the relations
between the deceased and the appellant were strained as the latter was .ill-
:treaiting the former and was carrying on with another woman from Shahdara.
G
H
A
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l s.c.R.
The dying declaration also receives corroboration from the report
of
theChemical Examiner and post mortem report of PW-11 which indicate that the
cause of death of the deceased was shock and toximia due to bum-;. [78 lE-H,
782A, E, F]
( 4) The evidence in the instant case inevitably points to the conclusion thait
it was the appellant and the appellant alone who intentionally caused the death
B
of the deceased and the plea sought to be raised by him that ti1e fire wrus
accidental is an after thought and stands refuted not only from the recovery
of the bottle· containing kerosene oil, burnt match sticks, match l:rox and haltburnt clothes of the deceased but ailso from the fact he did not come with
this plea either to PW-4 or PW-5.
[7820-H, 783Al

## Text

•• •
\
I
j
777
JASW ANT SINGH
v.
STATE (DELHI ADMN.)
September 14, 1978
[JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]
Evidr11cc-Circun1stantial evidence, value of, in sustaining co1n·iction-Dying
<leclaration not recorded by a Magistrate 1nusf be scrutinised closely.
The appellant stood charged for trial under s. 302 of the I.P.C. for having
·caused the death of his wife by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting her clothes
to fire.
The Addl. Sessions Judge relying on the dying declaraition which was
corroborated by the circumstantial evidence of the narration about the incident
by the deceased to her parents PW-I and PW-2 just before her death, tound
him guilty of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to
life imprisonment. The appeal preferred by the appellant to the High Court
having proved abo1tive, the appelJant came up before this Court by special
·ieave.
Dismissing the appeal the Court,
!-!ELD : { 1) The circumstantial evidence in order to susta>in conviction must
be complete and must be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis
other than that of guilt of the accused.
[781C-D]
(2) The dying declaration which is not recorded by a Magistrate has to
A
B
c
D
be scn1tinised closely, but it is well settled that if the Court is satisfied on a
E
cl05e scrutiny Of the dying declaration that it is truthful it is open to the
Court to convict the accused on its basis without any independent corroboration.
[781DJ
Khushal Rao v. The State of Bombay, [1958] SCR 552; Lallubhai Dcvchand
Shah & Ors. v. The Stat~ of Gujarat, [1971] 3 SCC 767; Vithal Sanuiath Kore
v. State of Maharashtra, [1978] I S.C.C. 622, referred to.
F
(3) (a) In the instant C&Se there is no direct evidence regarding the guilt
of the appellant and the prosecution case rests wholly on the circumstantial
-evidence and the dying declarations made by the deceased before the SubInspector Din Dayal and Roshan PW-I and Phool Vati PW-2.
[781B-CJ
(b) On a careful consideration of the evidence it is clear that the dying
cdeclaration Ext. PW 21/F, the genuineness of which is verified by Dr. Avtar
Singh Gill PW-18 is truthful and e-0nvincing and it cannot be brushed aside
merely on the ground that it was not recorded by a Magistrate especially when
it was recorded by Sub-Inspector Din Dayal in the presence of the duty doctor
viz. Artar Singh Gill at the time when the deceased was in great agony and
the life in her was fast ebbing away. The testimony of the parents of the
·<l•eeased viz. Roshan P.W. 1 aod Phool Vati PW-2 also lends strong corrobora-
·tion to tho dying declaration. They have categorically stated that the relations
between the deceased and the appellant were strained as the latter was .ill-
:treaiting the former and was carrying on with another woman from Shahdara.
G
H
A
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l s.c.R.
The dying declaration also receives corroboration from the report
of
theChemical Examiner and post mortem report of PW-11 which indicate that the
cause of death of the deceased was shock and toximia due to bum-;. [78 lE-H,
782A, E, F]
( 4) The evidence in the instant case inevitably points to the conclusion thait
it was the appellant and the appellant alone who intentionally caused the death
B
of the deceased and the plea sought to be raised by him that ti1e fire wrus
accidental is an after thought and stands refuted not only from the recovery
of the bottle· containing kerosene oil, burnt match sticks, match l:rox and haltburnt clothes of the deceased but ailso from the fact he did not come with
this plea either to PW-4 or PW-5.
[7820-H, 783Al
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 346
C
of 1974.
D
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
23-10-73 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 118 of
1972.
R. L. Kohli, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.
H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was de!iveNd by
JASWANT SINGH, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against
the judgment and order dated October 23, 1973 of the High Court
E
of Delhi confirming the judgment and order dated July 29, 1972 of
the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellant under
section 302 of the Indian Panel Code and sentencing him thereunder
to imprisonment for life for causing the death of his wife.
F
c
H
Briefly stated, the circnmstances giving rise to this appeal are :
Attracted by the screams emanating from the house of the appellant
situate in Basti Chain Sukh Das, Kala Mahal, Daryaganj, Delhi on·
the afternoon of July 6, 1971, the neighbours namely Murari Lal
(P.W. 4), Guiab Singh (P.W. 5) and one Kishan Lal rushed to the·
spot. On reaching the first floor of the house, they found the appel--
lant's wife named Karola, aged 27 years, lying nnconscions outside the·
living room in the courtyard with burns all over hJr body. Alongwith,
the appellant who was present there, they covered Karola with a bedsheet, put her o'n a cot and took her downstairs in the stre•et wherefrom she was removed in a tempo to Irwin Hospital, Delhi. At abaut
5.20 in the evening on that day, constable Baldev Singh (P.W. 7)
posted on duty at the Emergency Ward of the said Hospital, rang np
the Police Station, Jama Masjid, Delhi, informing it that the appellant
had got his wife, Kamla, admitted in the emergency ward of the hospital at about 4.15 or 4.30 P.M. becanse of some burns sustai'ned by
I
t. "
'.
'
\
·'-'··-l< -
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE (Jaswant Singh,!.)
779
her at her house and requesting that some officer might be sent to the
place of the occurrence. On receipt of this information, S.I. Din Dayal
(P.W. 21) proceeded to the hospital
accompanied
by
constable
Raghubir Singh (P.W. 6). On being informed by the doctor on duty
at the hospital that Kamla was unconcious and as such not in a fit
condition to make a statement, the Sub-Inspector
sent
constable
Raghubir Singh to the scene of occurrence with instructions to keep a
watch over the same, and himself remained in the hospital waiting
for an appropriate opportunity to record the statement of Kamla after
her revival. He tried several times upto the midnight to have the permission of the doctor on duty to record the statement of Kamla but
each tirne the doctor declared the patient unfit to make a statement.
At 7.50 A.M. on the morning of July 7, 1971, the Sub-Inspector
again repeated his request to the doctor on duty for permission to
record the statement of Karola but it was only at 10.30 A.M. that
Dr. Avtar Singh Gill (P.W. 18) who was o'n duty at that time gave
him the requisite permission which enabled him to record the statement (Exh. P.W. 21/F) of Kamla in the presence of the said doctor.
llis statement was to the following effect :-
A
"My husband sprinkled kerosene oil over me and set fire
and when later on I had sufficiently been burnt he put a
bucket full of water over me. It was about 1 P.M. and I
had not quarelled with my husband Jaswant Singh.
I had
asked him as to why he had come home late whereupon he
got annoyed and beat me.
After beating me he sprinkled
kerosene oil over me and set fire to my clothes. At the time
of setting fire to my clothes he had closed the door from
inside."
After completing the necessary formalities, the Sub-Inspector sent
'Rooqa' (Exh. P.W. 10/ A) together with Kamla's aforesaid statement
(Exh. P.W. 21/F) to his Police Station for registration of the case
'llillder section 307 of the fndian Penal Code and himself left for the
scene of the occurrence. Shortly after the departure of the Sub-Inspector the parents of Karola namely Roshan (P.W. 1) and Phool Vati
(P.W. 2) enquired of Kamla as to how she had sustained the bums
on her body. In reply to their query, Kam!a told them that the appellant did not come back to the house from his office on the evening
of July 5, 1971 and spent the whole of the night intervening the 5th
and 6th of July, 1971 in Shahdara; that on returning to the house on
the morning of July 6, 1971, the appellant awakened her and asked
her to prepare the meal which she did but the appellant threw it away
and beat her; that on her asking the appellant to send her to her
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
A
B
c
780
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 1 s.c.R.
parent's house, the appellant abused her, bolted the door of the room
from inside, sprinkled kerosene oil on her clothing and set them on
fire.
After about an hour of this statement, the condition of Kamla
deteriorated and she succumbed to her injuries at about 12.25 P.M.
Dr. Bharat Singh, Police Surgeon, Delhi (P.W. 11) performed the
autopsy on the dead body of Kamla on Jnly 8, 1971. He found superficial burns all over the body from the skull to the toes which according
to hlm were antemortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. The doctor also found almost full grown dead
male foetus in the womb of the deceased. On the basis of the obs)!rvations made by him, the doctor opined that the cause of the death
of Kamla was shock and toximia due to burns.
On arrival of the scene of occurrence after despatching the dying
declaration (Exh. P.W. 21/F) to the Police Station, the Sub-Inspector
prepared the site plan, got the place photographed by Head Constable
Inder Singh (P.W. 3) and seized a few articles from the living room
D
of the appellant's house including a bottle containing some kerosene
oil, a match box, some burnt match sticks, some half burnt clothes of
the deceased and an unserviceable stove without any kerosene oil vide
Exhibit P.W. 8/ A which he sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination.
After performing the necessary tests, the Chemical Examllier sent a report to the, Superintendent of Police, Central District,
E
Delhi inter alia stating therein that the liquid contained in the bottle
was kerosene oil and that traces of kerosene oil were present on the
half burnt clothes of the deceased. On July 8, 1971, the Sub-Inspector
also got the appellant examined by Dr. Obnesh Kaur (P.W. 20) who
~und the following injuries on his person :-
F
G
"(i) Multiple blisters posterior aspect lower 113rd left
upper arm;
(ii) An irregular superficial torn out blisters unceration
on the posterior aspect left forearm upper 1 /3rd.
(iii) An irregular superficial burns with. minor blisters
dorsum (back side of wrist) of left wrist.
(iv) Atom blister ulceration o·n the first joint of the left
index finger dorsum side."
In the opinion of the doctor, injuries (i) to (iv) were simple burns
of more than 24 hours' duration.
B
On completion of the investigation, the appdlant was proceeded
against in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi who
committed him to the Court of Session at Delhi for trial under sedion
•
)
'~ '
\
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE (Jaswant Singh,!.)
781
302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional SeSllions Jndge, Delhi
who tried the appellant held that the appellant was guilty of the offence
with which he was charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for
lifu. The appeal preferred by the appellant to the High Court having
' proved abortive, he has come up in appeal to this Court by special
leave, as already stated.
We have heard counsel for the parties and gohe through the record.
The short question that arises for
determination in this case is
whether the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the offence
nnder section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to the appellant. It is
true that in the r:rsta'nt case, there is no direct evidence regarding the
guilt of the appellant and the prosecution case rests wholly on the
circumstaritial evidence and the dying declarations made by the deceased before S.I. Din Dayal and Roshan (P.W. 1) and Phool Vaii (P.W.
2). It is also true that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
collvictiO':l must be complete and must be incapable of explanation
on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. It is
also true !hat the dying declaration which is not recorded by a Magistrate has lo be scrutinised clo•oly, but it is well settled that if the Court
is satified on a close scrutiny of the dying declaration that it is truthful,
it is open to the Court to convict the accused on its basis without any
independent corroboration.
(See Khushal Rao v. The State of Bombay('); Lallubhai Devchand Shah & Ors. v. The State of Guiarat(')
and Vithal Somnath Kore v. State of Maharashtra(').
In the instant
case, on a careful consideration of the evidence on the record, we are
satisfied that the dying declaration (Exh. P.W. 21/F), the genuineness
of. which is verified by Dr. Avtar Sihgh Gill (P.W. 18), is trnthful
and convincing and it cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground
that it was not recorded by a Magistrate especially when it is to be
remembered that it was recorded by S.I. Din Dayal in the presence
of the duty doctor Avtar Singh Gill at a time when the deceased was
in great agony and the life in her was fast ebbing away. It is well
recognised that when the words are few, they are seldom spent in vain.
It would also be well at this staga to recall the statement made in crossexamination by Shri Yashpaul, Link Judicial Magistrate, Jama Masjid,
Delhi to the effect that when he reached the Hospital to record the
statement of the deceased but could not do so as she had expired before
his arrival, he was informed that a police officer had already recorded
(I) [1958] S. C. R. 552.
(2) [1971] 3 s. c. c. 767.
(3) [1978) 1 S. C. C. 622.
A
B
c
D.
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l S.C.R.
her statement. The testimony of the parents of the deceased namely,
Rosha'n (P.W. I) and Phool Vati (P.W. 2) also lends strong corroboration to Exhibit P.W. 21/F. They have categorically stated that
the relations between the deceased and the appellant were strained as
the latter was ill-treating ihe former and was carrying on with another
woman from Shahdara who used to visit his (the appellant's) house
every now and then; that the deceased oftoo used to complain to them
about the misbehaviour and cruel conduct of the appellant towards her
and used to send oral and written messages imploring them to take her
away from the matrimonial house; that they sometimes spoke to the
appella."lt about his alleged misbehaviour when he would assure them
I
that he would behave properly in future and that hoping that things
would improve in due course, they advised the deceased to stick to the
matrimonial house. It is also in evidence that when on hearing the
screams of the deceased, the neighbours arrived at the spot, they
found her lying unconscious outside her living room with burns all over
her body.
From the aforesaid dying declarations, it stands estabilshed
beyond doubt that the appellant who had been ill-treating the deceased
and was carrying on with another woman from Shahdara got enraged
and caused the death of the deceased by sprinkling kerosene oil on her
clothing and setting them on fire after closing the door of his living
room from inside so that succour does not reach her when she raised
a protest about the appellant's absence from the house throughout the
previous night. The dying declarations also receive corroboration
from the report of the Chemical Examiner which shows that the traces .
of kerosene oil were found on the half-burnt clothes of the deceased
recovered from .the living room by S.I. Din Dayal vide Exhibit P.W.
8 /A and the fact that the inside portion of the door of the room was
found burnt as also from the statement of Dr. Bharat. Singh, Police
~
Surgeon, Delhi (P.W. 11) that on the basis of the appearances met
with by him on post mortem examination of the dead body of the
.
deceased, he came to the conclusion that the cause of death of the
deceased was shock and toximia due to burns.
The plea sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant that the
G
fire was accidental seems to be an after thought and is negatived by
the fact that no cooking material was found in the living room where
the incident appears to have taken place as also by the fact 'that the
primus stove recovered and seized from the living room vide Exhibit
P.W. 8/ A was admittedly unserviceable. That the appellant comt,
mitted the ghastly crime is also proved from the recovery of the bottle
II containing kerosene oil, burnt match sticks, match box and half-burnt
clothes df the deceased as also from the fact that he did not suggest
either to Murari Lal (P.W. 4) or to Guiab Singh (P.W. 5) at the stage
•
\
/
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE (Jaswant Singh,!.)
783
of cross-examination that on their arrival at the scene of occurrence oa
hearing the screams on the afternoon of July 6, 1971, he gave out that
the incident was accidental. Thus the evidence inevitably points to the
conclusion that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who intentionally caused the death of the deceased. Accordingly we see no
reason to interfere with the findings concurrently arrived at by the
courts below.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
S.R.
Appeal dismissed.
16-S49SCI/78
B