# PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA & ANR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

- **Citation:** [2020] 1 S.C.R. 341
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 194-195 of 2012
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/purshottam-chopra-anr-v-state-govt-of-nct-delhi-34175
- **Pages:** 54

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 r/w s. 34 - Murder - By two accused - Setting the
deceased on fire - Information given to Police Control Room (PCR)
- Officials of PCR took the victim to the hospital - Statement made
by the victim to the doctor (PW 8) who prepared MLC, accusing the
appellants (accused persons) for the incident - Statement later made
to police Sub-Inspector (PW16) accusing the appellants - Trial Court
relying on the Dying Declarations convicted the accused and
sentenced them to life imprisonment - High Court affirmed the
conviction and sentence - Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: The
two statements of the victim have rightly been accepted as Dying
Declaration - The Dying Declarations inspire confidence and could
be relied and acted upon even without corroboration - Suggestion
as to self-immolation as occurring in the statement of PW-6 was of
a remote hearsay and hence cannot be accepted - The burden to
establish the self-immolation theory was on the accused, in which
it failed - The act of pouring kerosene and then putting the person
on fire, has all the ingredients of doing an act with the intention of
causing death in a gruesome manner - Hence the conviction cannot
be altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) - Conviction u/s. 302/34 and
sentence of life imprisonment affirmed.
Dying Declaration:
Principles relating to recording of Dying Declaration -
Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A dying declaration could be the sole basis of
conviction even without corroboration, if it inspires confidence
of the Court. The Court should be satisfied that the declarant
 [2020] 1 S.C.R. 341
341
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement; and
that it was a voluntary statement, which was not the result of
tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where a dying declaration is
suspicious or is suffering from any infirmity such as want of fit
state of mind of the declarant or of like nature, it should not be
acted upon without corroborative evidence. When the eyewitnesses affirm that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious
state to make the statement, the medical opinion cannot prevail.
The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration
nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but
the person recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the
maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the
statement. Although presence of a Magistrate is not absolutely
necessary for recording of a dying declaration but to ensure
authenticity and credibility, it is expected that a Magistrate be
requested to record such dying declaration and/or attestation be
obtained from other persons present at the time of recording the
dying declaration. As regards a burns case, the percentage and
degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility
of dying declaration; and the decisive factor would be the quality
of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to
make the statement. If after careful scrutiny, the Court finds the
statement placed as dying declaration to be voluntary and also
finds it coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in
recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration.
[Para 21] [384-E-H; 385-A-C]
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710
- followed.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh (2013) 14 SCC
159 : [2013] 8 SCR 968 ; Bhagwan v. State of
Maharashtra (2019) 8 SCC 95 ; State of Punjab v. Gian
Kaur and Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2809 ; Uka Ram v.
State of Rajasthan JT 2001 (4) SC 472 : [2001] 2 SCR
1052 ; Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR
1979 SC 1173 ; Gopal Singh and Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1972 SC 1557;
Thurukanni Pompiah and Anr. v. State of Mysore AIR
1965 SC 939 - relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 1999 CriLJ 4321 ; Koli Chunilal Savji and
Anr. v. State of Gujar

## Text

_Characters 0–39,938 of 127,974. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39938 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
341
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA & ANR.
v.
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 194-195 of 2012)
JANUARY, 07, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 r/w s. 34 - Murder - By two accused - Setting the
deceased on fire - Information given to Police Control Room (PCR)
- Officials of PCR took the victim to the hospital - Statement made
by the victim to the doctor (PW 8) who prepared MLC, accusing the
appellants (accused persons) for the incident - Statement later made
to police Sub-Inspector (PW16) accusing the appellants - Trial Court
relying on the Dying Declarations convicted the accused and
sentenced them to life imprisonment - High Court affirmed the
conviction and sentence - Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: The
two statements of the victim have rightly been accepted as Dying
Declaration - The Dying Declarations inspire confidence and could
be relied and acted upon even without corroboration - Suggestion
as to self-immolation as occurring in the statement of PW-6 was of
a remote hearsay and hence cannot be accepted - The burden to
establish the self-immolation theory was on the accused, in which
it failed - The act of pouring kerosene and then putting the person
on fire, has all the ingredients of doing an act with the intention of
causing death in a gruesome manner - Hence the conviction cannot
be altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) - Conviction u/s. 302/34 and
sentence of life imprisonment affirmed.
Dying Declaration:
Principles relating to recording of Dying Declaration -
Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A dying declaration could be the sole basis of
conviction even without corroboration, if it inspires confidence
of the Court. The Court should be satisfied that the declarant
 [2020] 1 S.C.R. 341
341
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement; and
that it was a voluntary statement, which was not the result of
tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where a dying declaration is
suspicious or is suffering from any infirmity such as want of fit
state of mind of the declarant or of like nature, it should not be
acted upon without corroborative evidence. When the eyewitnesses affirm that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious
state to make the statement, the medical opinion cannot prevail.
The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration
nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but
the person recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the
maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the
statement. Although presence of a Magistrate is not absolutely
necessary for recording of a dying declaration but to ensure
authenticity and credibility, it is expected that a Magistrate be
requested to record such dying declaration and/or attestation be
obtained from other persons present at the time of recording the
dying declaration. As regards a burns case, the percentage and
degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility
of dying declaration; and the decisive factor would be the quality
of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to
make the statement. If after careful scrutiny, the Court finds the
statement placed as dying declaration to be voluntary and also
finds it coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in
recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration.
[Para 21] [384-E-H; 385-A-C]
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710
- followed.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh (2013) 14 SCC
159 : [2013] 8 SCR 968 ; Bhagwan v. State of
Maharashtra (2019) 8 SCC 95 ; State of Punjab v. Gian
Kaur and Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2809 ; Uka Ram v.
State of Rajasthan JT 2001 (4) SC 472 : [2001] 2 SCR
1052 ; Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR
1979 SC 1173 ; Gopal Singh and Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1972 SC 1557;
Thurukanni Pompiah and Anr. v. State of Mysore AIR
1965 SC 939 - relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 1999 CriLJ 4321 ; Koli Chunilal Savji and
Anr. v. State of Gujarat 1999 CriLJ 4582 ; Vijay Pal v.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2015) 4 SCC
749 : [2015] 3 SCR 394 ; Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda
v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1
SCR 88 ; Kalabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2019
SCC ONLINE SC 621 - referred to.
1.2 In the MLC report (Ex. PW-8/A), PW-8 specifically
mentioned the particulars and information as given out by the
victim himself. PW-8 had been categorical in her assertion that
the patient had himself informed her about the alleged history
behind his sustaining burn injuries. There is absolutely nothing
on record to disbelieve or even doubt the statement of PW-8. On
the contrary, such recording of the expressions verbatim by the
doctor lends credence to her testimony and the document
prepared by her. With this testimony of PW-8, it is established
beyond doubt that in his first version in the hospital, the victim
asserted that the accused persons poured kerosene oil on him
and set him on fire. It is also established that accused (appellant
No. 2) was identified by the victim as 'telwala' and it has not been
doubted that in the slang expressions, the reference had been to
the one dealing in some kind of oil business. These are the first
traces with names and slight particulars of the assailants. In the
sequence of circumstances, the expressions have rightly been
fastened on the appellants. [Para 23.1] [386-B-E]
1.3 It is clear from the contents of Ex. PW-8/A about the
condition of the victim that though the doctor found him to be in
critical condition with 100% deep burns yet, he was conscious
and oriented. Such significant noting about the mental faculties
of the victim at the time of giving out the narratives to the doctor
makes it clear that even when he was suffering from the agony of
100% deep burns, he was not in an unfit state of mind; and there
appears no reason to disbelieve his first version as recorded in
Ex. PW-8/A. [Para 23.2] [386-G-H; 387-A]
1.4 The statement (Ex.PW-16/B) said to have been made
by the victim to PW-16 [police offifical) as recorded in hospital in
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Hindi language, has in fact been the pivot of the prosecution case.
This statement as also the testimony of PW-16 has undergone
thorough scrutiny by the Trial Court as also by the High Court.
[Para 24] [387-B-C]
1.5 On examining testimony of PW-16 as also the contents
of Ex. PW-16/B,it is found that there is no reason to take any
view different. The presence of PW-16 in that hospital at the
relevant point of time has not been questioned and it is clearly
established on record that before recording the statement of the
victim, he moved the application Ex. PW-16/A whereupon PW17 [doctor] declared the patient fit for making statement.
Thereafter, PW-16 proceeded to record the statement of victim
and it has not been shown on record if anyone related with
deceased was present at the time of recording of his statement
by PW-16. Any possibility of tutoring or prompting is totally ruled
out. In the statement, the victim even stated the registration
number of the vehicle he was employed and gave out the names
and addresses of the appellants while stating their respective
roles in the incident in question. At the time of making the said
statement, the victim was suffering from 100% deep burn injuries
and was in a critical condition. In the given state, elaboration on
the motive etc., was least expected from him. PW-16 appears to
have recorded whatever was given out by the victim; and there
appears nothing of any manipulation by him. [Para 24] [387-C-F]
1.6 In the given set of circumstances, there is no infirmity
that the Trial Court and the High Court accepted that the victim
was in a fit state of mind to give the statement. It has also not
been established on record that the statements of the victim were
an outcome of tutoring or figment of imagination. In other words,
the statements appear to be voluntary and were given in a fit
state of mind. In the given set of circumstances, the statements
so made by the victim could be acted upon as dying declarations.
[Para 25] [388-B-C]
1.7 The expectations in the Delhi High Court Rules that
the dying declaration be recorded by a Judicial Magistrate; the
fitness of the declarant be examined; the statement be in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
345
form of simple narrative; signature or thumb impression of the
declarant be obtained etc. are all, obviously, intended to ensure
that the dying declaration is recorded in the manner that its
credence does not remain questionable. However, a particular
statement, when being offered as dying declaration and satisfies
all the requirements of judicial scrutiny, cannot be discarded
merely because it has not been recorded by a Magistrate or that
the police officer did not obtain attestation by any person present
at the time of making of the statement. Even in this regard, the
witness PW-19 has pointed out that when asked to attest the
statement of the victim as recorded by PW 16 the doctor pointed
out that the facts had already been mentioned in the MLC and
there was no need to attest the statement. Taking an overall view
of the matter, there is no reason that the statement Ex. PW-16/B
be discarded only for want of its recording by a Magistrate or for
want of attestation. [Para 25.1] [388-E-H; 389-A]
1.8 The extent of burn injuries - going beyond 92% and
even to 100% - would not, by itself, lead to a conclusion that
victim of such burn injuries may not be in a position to make the
statement. Irrespective of the extent and gravity of burn injuries,
when the doctor had certified him to be in fit state of mind to
make the statement; and the person recording the statement
was also satisfied about his fitness for making such statement;
and when there does not appear any inherent or apparent defect,
the dying declaration cannot be discarded. The juristic theory
regarding acceptability of statement made by a person who is at
the point of death has its fundamentals in the recognition that at
the terminal point of life, every motive to falsehood is removed
or silenced. To a fire victim like that of present case, the gravity
of injuries is an obvious indicator towards the diminishing hope
of life in the victim; and on the accepted principles, acceleration
of diminishing of hope of life could only obliterate the likelihood
of falsehood or improper motive. Of course, it may not lead to
the principle that gravity of injury would itself lead to
trustworthiness of the dying declaration. There could still be some
inherent defect for which a statement, even if recorded as dying
declaration, cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Therefore, merely for 100% burn injuries, it cannot be said that
the victim was incapable to make a statement which could be
acted upon as dying declaration. [Para 25.2] [389-C-G]
Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2015)
4 SCC 749 : [2015] 3 SCR 394 ; Bhagwan v. State of
Maharashtra (2019) 8 SCC 95 ; State of Punjab v. Gian
Kaur and Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2809 ; Dalip Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1173 - relied on.
1.9 As regards the suggestions that the alleged statements
Ex. PW-8/A and PW-16/B are manipulated and manufactured,
there had not been shown any reason for which PW-8 and PW-16
would manufacture any such document. The doubts sought to be
suggested about availability of thumb impression of the victim
on the statement Ex. PW-16/B also deserve to be rejected. In
the case of burns, the skin of a small part of the body like thumb
may remain intact; and it is essentially a question of fact as to
whether skin of thumb had also been burnt completely. Even when
the victim was carrying 100% deep burns, as per the post-mortem
report, peeling of skin was noticed on dorsum of hands and
therefore, taking of thumb impression on Ex. PW-16/B is not
ruled out. The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High
Court in accepting the thumb impression on Ex. PW-16/B do not
appear calling for any interference. [Para 25.3] [389-G-H;
390-A-D]
Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 8 SCC 95 ;
State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur and Anr. AIR 1998 SC
2809 - relied on.
1.10 In such fire injury case, no adverse conclusion can be
drawn against the statement made by the victim about his having
consumed some liquor and for this reason, the reliability of all
other facts stated in his statement cannot be doubted. If he had
consumed liquor, there was less probability of his talking
coherently. It is difficult to say that victim was unable to make
the statement coherently. [Para 25.4] [390-E-F; H]
1.11 Therefore, the two statements Ex. PW-8/A and Ex.
PW-16/B have rightly been accepted as dying declarations of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
347
victim, as made few hours before his demise and there is no
reason to discard the same. In the given set of facts and
circumstances, where these two dying declarations inspire
confidence, They could be relied and acted upon even without
corroboration. [Para 25.5] [391-A-B]
2.1 The version as attempted to be given by PW6 in the
cross-examination that the victim had at the first point of time
made the statement about self-immolation for the reason of himself
having been dropped from tempo has rightly been rejected by
the Trial Court and by the High Court. This witness did not state
anything in his examination-in-chief about the victim having told
anyone about self-immolation and therefore, there was no occasion
for the prosecution to declare him hostile and to confront him
with his previous statement. Moreover, though the story about
the victim having asserted that he had set himself on fire came to
be introduced by this witness in his cross-examination on behalf
of the appellant No. 1 but the value and worth of such suggestion
was effectively demolished by this witness himself in his further
statement in cross-examination on behalf of the appellant No. 2
where he categorically stated that "victim has not told the people
present in my presence that he had put himself on fire". Obviously,
the suggestion as occurring in the statement of PW-6 about selfimmolation by the victim had been of a remote hearsay and is not
of any worth at all. [Paras 26 and 26.1] [391-C-D, F-H; 392-A]
2.2 The plea about want of examination of other persons
named by PW-6 falls to the ground because such names and their
roles came to be introduced only in the statement made by PW-6
in his cross-examination. The theory of self-immolation as also
the names of the other persons, who allegedly reached the spot,
having come up by way of cross-examination of PW-6, the burden
was on the accused persons to establish such theory by cogent
evidence. No such attempt was made on behalf of the accusedappellants to prove any such fact or to examine any such named
person. [Para 26.2] [392-B-C]
3. The plea that the prosecution has not been able to
establish the identity of assailants in this crime, has no substance
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
when the particulars as occurring in the two statements Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW-16/B are examined and analysed, wherein
occupation of at least one of the assailant and then the names and
addresses of both the appellants came to be mentioned. For this
very reason, the other contention that the incident took place in
a crowded market place and the appellants were not seen by
anyone also pales into insignificance. [Para 27.1] [392-G-H;
393-A]
4. The establishment of the motive for crime is also of no
effect because, in the first place, in a death case, the motive
remains essentially known to the deceased and to the offender;
and a prosecution case cannot fail only for want of proof of motive.
This apart, in the present case, the indications of an existing
dispute of the deceased with appellant No. 1 do appear in the
testimony of the brother of the deceased, PW-1. It is also noticed
that the deceased and the accused persons were the residents of
the same locality. [Para 27.2] [393-B]
5. The High Court has rightly relied upon the information
reflected in Parts II, III and IV of PCR form, which clearly show
that not only the initial information was recorded about the victim
being on fire but further information were recorded from time to
time during the course of transporting and admitting the victim
to hospital, where not only his address came to be mentioned but
the names of the assailants also surfaced. The said document
having been produced before the Court and its copy having been
taken on record, with PW-7 having proved the same, it would not
be justified to discard it. [Para 27.3] [393-D-E]
6. As regards the statement of PW-18 ASI who asserted
that the victim, while being taken to hospital in PCR Van and
even in hospital, did not speak to him and was only crying in pain,
Some of the remarks appear justified. However, this aspect does
not require further dilation for the other facts established on
record, including the fact that the victim was conscious and
oriented at the time of admission to the hospital and made the
statements in a fit state of mind. [Para 27.4] [393-F; 394-A-B]
7. The act of pouring kerosene over a person and then
putting him on fire by lighting a match has all the ingredients of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
349
doing an act with the intention of causing death of a person in a
gruesome manner. The conviction of the appellants for the offence
of murder appears justified and there is no reason to convert the
same into any offence of lesser degree i.e. u/s. 304 (Part II).
[Para 27.5] [394-C-D]
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 - referred to.
8. When it has come on record that appellant No. 1 was
with the appellant No. 2 when the victim was threatened and was
put on fire, the conviction of this appellant under Section 302/34
IPC remains unexceptionable. The suggestion of no likelihood
of appellant No. 1 throwing kerosene on the head of the deceased
deserves to be rejected without much dilation. [Para 27.6] [394E-F]
Case Law Reference
AIR 1998 SC 2809
relied on
Para 14
[2001] 2 SCR 1052
relied on
Para 14
AIR 1979 SC 1173
relied on
Para 14
AIR 1972 SC 1557
relied on
Para 14
AIR 1965 SC 939
relied on
Para 14
[1985] 1 SCR 88
referred to
Para 14.5
(2019) SCC ONLINE SC 621 referred to
Para 15.2
(2002) 6 SCC 710
followed
Para 16
[2013] 8 SCR 968
relied on
Para 16
(2019) 8 SCC 95
relied on
Para 16
1999 CriLJ 4321
referred to.
Para 18.1
1999 CriLJ 4582
referred to
Para 18.1
[2015] 3 SCR 394
relied on
Para 19.1
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 194-195 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2011 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Appeal Nos. 121 of 1999 and 139 of 1999.
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Ms. Neha Kapoor, Mohit Rhadu, Milind Kumar, Jagjit Singh
Chhabra, Saksham Maheshwari, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Abhay
Kumar, B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Preliminary
1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have called in question
the judgment and order dated 23.05.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of
1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1999 whereby, the High Court of
Delhi has affirmed the judgment and order dated 30.01.1999 in Sessions
Case No. 2 of 1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi; and has
upheld the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC').
2. In a brief outline of the material aspects, it could be noticed that
in the present case, the appellants are accused of causing death of one
Sher Singh by putting him on fire. There had been no eye-witness to the
incident but the prosecution has relied upon two statements said to have
been made by the deceased after the incident: one when he was admitted
to the hospital with 100% burns and another when he was under treatment,
respectively to a doctor and to a police officer. The Trial Court as also
the High Court have accepted these statements as being his dying
declarations wherein the appellants were named as the assailants.
Therefore, the appellants stand convicted essentially on the basis of the
dying declarations of the victim. The reliability of such dying declarations
has been assailed in these appeals apart from other contentions concerning
the surrounding factors. The relevant facts and background aspects of
the matter could be noticed, keeping in view of the points arising for
determination in these appeals.
The relevant facts and background
3. Put in brief, the prosecution case had been that on 18.12.1997,
at about 3.00-3.15 p.m., hearing the screams of a person and noticing
smoke coming from plot no. 17 situated near Goverdhan Park, Uttam
Nagar, Delhi, a lot of people gathered at the spot and saw that a man
was ablaze with his entire body covered with fire; and the people so
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
gathered made efforts to put out the flames by throwing water over the
said person. The information as regards this incident was received in the
Police Control Room ('PCR') through a phone call from some unknown
person at 3.28 p.m. by Ct. Anju (PW-7), who made an entry bearing No.
467 in Form I (Ex. PW-7/A) and passed on the information to the nearest
Police Station. The concerned officers from PCR reached the spot and
shifted the injured person to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment, where
Dr. Sushma (PW-8) prepared the MLC (Ex. PW-8/A). While preparing
the MLC, the injured person identified himself as Sher Singh and gave
his address; and narrated the incident that had led to his current condition
while accusing one Purshottam and another Suresh (telwala), both
residents of A-block, Uttam Nagar, Delhi as his assailants1.
4. Simultaneously, SI Rajesh Kumar (PW-16) and Ct. Vijay
Parkash (PW-13) reached the site of incident and were apprised that
the injured person had been shifted to the hospital. SI Rajesh Kumar left
Ct. Vijay Parkash on the spot and himself reached the hospital, only to
find that the injured person was admitted in ICU. SI Rajesh Kumar
collected the MLC prepared for the injured person; and moved an
application (Ex. PW-16/A) before the concerned doctor to take the
statement of the injured person. When Dr. Rajesh Verma (PW-17)
certified that the patient was fit to make the statement, SI Rajesh Kumar
recorded his statement (Ex. PW-16/B) wherein the injured person -
Sher Singh - gave out his name and address and then stated that he had
purchased half a bottle of liquor from one Suresh (telwala), who had an
oil depot; that he drank such liquor; that Purshottam also had an oil
depot; and that while Suresh poured the kerosene oil over him and lit him
aflame, Purshottam was present.2
5. Thereafter, the SHO and Additional SHO of Police Station
Vikas Puri reached the hospital. After recording the statement of injured,
SI Rajesh Kumar left the hospital, only to arrive back at the site of
incident and sent Ct. Vijay Parkash to register a complaint for the offence
punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and hence, FIR
No. 780 of 1997 came to be registered. During this time, SI Rajesh
Kumar got the site photographed; prepared the site plan; seized one
piece of burnt cloth (white colour), one half bottle of liquor, one white
1 These persons Purshottam and Suresh are the appellants herein.
2 The contents of this statement (Ex. PW-16/B) as also the MLC (Ex. PW-8/A) are
 taken as the dying declarations of the victim and shall be referred in detail hereafter
 later.
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
colour container, one burnt sweater, one match box which contained
match sticks; prepared seizure memo of the articles; and deposited the
same with the Police Station at Vikas Puri.
6. On the basis of statement made by the injured Sher Singh, the
appellants Purshottam and Suresh were arrested in the night intervening
18/19.12.1997 from their respective houses. In the morning hours of
19.12.1997, the information of Sher Singh's death was received which
resulted in the case being converted to one under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and the investigation of the case was taken over by
Inspector Om Prakash, Additional SHO, Police Station Vikas Puri, who
conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body of Sher Singh before
sending it for post-mortem on 19.12.1997. Dr. Arvind (PW-14) conducted
the post-mortem and opined that the cause of death was due to shock
consequent to 100% ante-mortem flame burns.
7. The investigating officer then prepared a scaled map; sent the
articles seized to office of CFSL, Chandigarh and thereafter collected
the report; and filed the charge-sheet before the Magistrate, who
committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
The evidence
8. After committal, the case was tried as Sessions Case No. 2 of
1998 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. In prosecution
evidence, a total of 19 witnesses were examined namely, PW-1 Raju
(brother of deceased); PW-2 Paali (brother of deceased); PW-3 Ct.
Mahender Singh; PW-4 Head Ct. Jagbir Singh; PW-5 L/Ct. Rajesh;
PW-6 Rajesh (the shop owner near the place of incident who allegedly
reached the spot and found the victim in flames); PW-7 L/Ct. Anju (who
received the telephonic information in PCR and made an entry to that
effect); PW-8 Dr. Sushma (who had been working in Plastic and Burns
Ward in Safdarjang Hospital and who prepared the MLC as per the
alleged version of the victim); PW-9 Dr. H. K. Sharma (who signed the
death summary/discharge slip relating to the deceased victim); PW-10
Head Ct. Ved Parkash; PW-11 Gurdeep Kumar (the photographer);
PW-12 Inspector Devender Singh (who prepared the scaled site plan);
PW-13 Ct. Vijay Parkash (who reached the place of incident with SI
Rajesh Kumar); PW-14 Dr. Arvind (who conducted post-mortem over
the dead body of victim); PW-15 Ct. Joginder Singh; PW-16 SI Rajesh
Kumar (who reached the place of incident with Ct. Vijay Parkash and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
thereafter reached the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of
the victim); PW-17 Dr. Rajesh Verma (who declared the victim fit for
giving statement); PW-18 Harish Ram (who transported the victim to
hospital from the place of incident in PCR van); and PW-19 Inspector
Om Parkash (who took over the investigation from SI Rajesh Kumar).
9. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PW-3 Ct. Mahender Singh;
PW-4 Head Ct. Jagbir Singh; PW-5 L/Ct. Rajesh; PW-10 Head Ct. Ved
Parkash; PW-11 Gurdeep Kumar; PW-12 Inspector Devender Singh;
and PW-15 Ct. Joginder Singh had been the formal witnesses related
with the process of investigation. However, in view of the contentions
urged and the issues involved, we may take note of the salient features
of the testimonies of other witnesses namely, the brothers of deceased,
the person allegedly reaching the site upon noticing the incident, the
medical officers, and the police personnel.
9.1. PW-1 Raju, the elder brother of the deceased Sher Singh, led
in evidence, inter alia, to the effect that the appellants were the residents
of same locality as that of his brother; that the appellants were having
separate kerosene depots; that they were workers for BJP; and that
prior to the murder of Sher Singh, dispute had taken place between his
brother and Purshottam but no police complaint was filed due to fear. In
his cross-examination, this witness stated that he came to know about
the quarrels of deceased with Purshottam Chopra from his mother.
9.2. PW-2 Paali, also the brother of Sher Singh, led in evidence to
the effect that he had visited the mortuary to identify the dead body of
his brother. This witness stated that the deceased was living with him in
the same premises; that he was not aware if deceased used to consume
liquor but denied the suggestion that the deceased was a drunkard.
9.3. PW-6 Rajesh, having a shop across the road where the
incident had taken place, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on
hearing the screams and seeing the smoke, he rushed to the spot; that
other people from the market had also reached there; that he saw a
person burning on fire; that they threw water from a nearby tap on the
burning body of the victim who identified himself as Sher Singh; and that
someone from the market telephoned at number 100 whereupon the
police reached the spot.
9.3.1. In his cross-examination carried on behalf of the accused
Purshottam, this witness PW-6 Rajesh deposed that one has to pass
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
from the street in front of his shop to reach plot No. 17 and there was no
other way/gali to reach plot No. 17 nor there was any other exit. This
witness further stated that upon hearing the screams, himself as also his
neighbourers Daljit Singh and Vicky from Ravindra Auto and one Rinku
rushed to the spot; that he had not seen any person running or going
from the spot. This witness further pointed out that they threw water on
the victim, who stated his name and also gave out his address. This
witness, inter alia, stated,-
 " .....Some public persons had enquired from the victim as to
who had put him on fire. He had told them that since he was
dropped from the tempo, he had set himself on fire....."
This witness further attributed knowledge about some of the facts
to one Daljit and alleged that Daljit had seen the victim carrying kerosene
oil in polythene towards the plot. The witness stated, inter alia, as under:
" .....Daljit had told me in the evening that he had seen the
victim carrying the kerosene oil in a polythene towards that
plot. (Objected to by Ld. Addl. P.P.) Police had recorded my
statement and the statement of Rinku and Daljit in the same
evening. Volunteered the police had also recorded statement
of 10/12 persons. Daljit Singh and Rinku had not made these
statement to the police in my presence.
After 2/3 days of the incident, the T.V. persons had come at
plot no. 17 and had prepared a cassette. They had enquired
about the incident from me and Daljit Singh. My interview
was taken by City Cables. Interview of Daljit was taken by
City Cables. Daljit Singh had told city cables in his interview
that he had seen the victim carrying kerosene oil in the
polythene to that plot. (Objected to by Ld. Addl. P.P.)"
9.3.2. On being subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the
accused Suresh, this witness stated that he was not present at the time
when Sher Singh told the public that he had put himself on fire after
being dropped from the tempo. The relevant portion of his statement in
this cross-examination reads as under:
"....The victim Sher Singh had not told the public persons in
my presence that he had put himself on fire as he was dropped
from the tempo. About 100 or 120 persons had gathered at
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
the place of incident within 5 minutes. Police had interrogated
Tony and one other person from the same locality in my
presence on the next day and had recorded their statements.
Tony had stated to the police in his statement that victim was
telling that he had put himself on fire as he was dropped from
the tempo. (objected to) Tony had given the statement to police
in my presence. ...."
9.4. In all, four medical officers were examined in this matter.
PW-9 Dr. H.K. Sharma had been working in the Burns Ward of
Safdarjung Hospital where the victim was admitted on 18.12.1997 and
expired in the early hours of 19.12.1997. He got prepared the death
summary/discharge slip (Ex. PW-9/A). The statement made by this
witness in cross-examination as regards the critical condition of the victim
and preparation of OPD slip have been referred in the contentions on
behalf of the appellants and hence, it would be apposite to take note of
his testimony in the cross-examination that reads as under:
"It is correct that the patient was in a very critical condition
right from the time of admission. It is correct that the condition
of the patient went on deteriorating since time of his
admission. It is correct that the patient remained admitted
throughout in ICU. Death summary Ex. PW-9/A was prepared
on the basis of the recording in the patient file. First document
prepared at the time of the patient was OPD slip. The name of
the informer was mentioned on the opd slip. I mentioned the
informant in Ex. PW-9/A to be 'police' from the OPD card."
9.5. PW-14 Dr. Arvind had conducted post-mortem over the dead
body of the victim Sher Singh. In the external examination recorded by
him, it had been recorded as under:
"...Burns injuries: (1) Cut down wound was present on the
lower end of right upper arm. (2) Dermo-eprdermai burns
superficial to deep in nature were present all over the body.
The total percentage of burns area was about 100%. The area
of redness was present on four (sic) arms and front of chest.
The area of blackening of skin was present on face, front of
the chest. Peeling of skin was present on dorsome (sic) of
hands, Front of legs. Heat split lecerations were present on
front of left shoulder....No mark of violence of leg, signs of
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
struggle were present on the body. Smell of kerosene was
present in scalp hair."
9.6. PW-17 Dr. Rajesh Verma deposed that he had declared the
patient to be fit for giving his statement and an endorsement was made
by him on the requisition Ex. PW-16/A provided by the Investigating
Officer at mark 'X'. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that
after admission, the condition of the patient was continuously
deteriorating; that he was under continuous medical watch; and that he
ultimately died at 4.00 a.m. This witness also stated that the patient was
under continuous medical attendance at ICU but denied the suggestion
that the certificate regarding fitness to make statement was obtained
from him by the police in a routine manner.
9.7. PW-8 Dr. Sushma, one of the members of the Plastic and
Burns Ward had attended on the injured Sher Singh when he was admitted
to the hospital. She deposed, in her examination-in-chief, that Sher Singh
was initially brought to the burns causality; that Sher Singh himself gave
the alleged history that he had sustained burn injuries when
Purshottam and Suresh (telwala) threatened him and then poured
kerosene on him and set him on fire. She also stated that on
examination, the patient was found conscious and oriented, though his
general condition was critical, being that the entire surface area of his
body was found with 100% deep burns. The relevant contents of the
statement made by this witness PW-8 Dr. Sushma in her crossexamination may also be taken note of in requisite details as under:
"I do not know if the patient was removed earlier to the main
casuality of Safdarjang hospital. Burns patient are brought
directly to the casuality of burns ward. Victim Sher Sg. was
not accompanied by any relative/attendant. Police had brought
the patient in the casuality.
Death summary is prepared if the patient expires. Ex. PW-8/A
is the first document prepared by me.
I do not remember if the patient was crying in agony when he
was brought at the casuality. As soon as the patient arrives at
the casuality, OPD slip is prepared by the Junior Resident.
On the OPD card it is decided if the patient is to be admitted
or to be sent back. MLC is prepared after the preparation of
OPD card. OPD card was before me when I prepared the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
MLC Ex. PW-8/A. I have not recorded the fact in the MLC Ex.
PW-8/A that the patient was brought by the police. I remember
this fact by memory. It is possible that some relations might
have accompanied the patient. The OPD card remains in the
patient file. It is incorrect to suggest that the patient had not
given any alleged history or that later at the suggestion of
the police I have prepared this MLC. No mark of identification
of the patient was obtained on the MLC Ex. PW-8/A. The whole
of the body of the patient including his thumbs were burnt."
9.8. The testimonies of five police personnel related with this matter
also need to be taken note of. PW-7 L/Ct. Anju deposed that on
18.12.1997, she received information through a telephone call that some
unknown person had set himself on fire near Uttam Nagar bus stand
and thereafter, she filled in the PCR form regarding this information at
Serial No. 467. The statement of this witness was deferred for want of
original record and she was further examined alongwith the original
proforma of PCR, photocopy whereof was taken on record as Exhibit
PW-7/B.
9.9. PW-13 Ct. Vijay Parkash in his examination-in-chief stated
that at the relevant time, he was on emergency duty at Police Station
Vikas Puri and reached the spot with SI Rajesh Kumar after receiving
information about an injured person lying at Dal Mill Road, Goverdhan
Park; and on reaching the said spot, they were informed that the injured
had already been shifted to the hospital by PCR Van. Thereafter, SI
Rajesh instructed him to remain at the spot and left for the hospital.
Upon his return from the hospital at about 09.50 p.m., SI Rajesh handed
him one rukka for registration of an FIR at the police station whereupon
he got recorded FIR at No. 780/97 and returned to the spot with a copy
of FIR and thereafter assisted the Investigating Officer to collect/seize
certain articles from the spot, which were later sealed in an envelope. In
his cross-examination, this witness deposed as under:
"...There is a distance of about 1 1⁄2 Km. between the PS and
the spot. About 15/20 public persons were already present at
the spot when we reached there. Insp. Rajesh had not recorded
the statement of any person on reaching at the spot. After
Insp. Rajesh had returned at the spot at 9.50 P.M. from the
hospital, he did not record statement of any person in my
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
presence....I.O. had not called any public person at the time
of sealing the case property...."
9.10. PW-18 ASI Harish Ram stated in his examination-in-chief
that at the relevant time on 18.12.1997, he was posted in PCR West
Zone when they received a wireless message at around 3.30 p.m. that a
person was in burnt condition near scooter market, Uttam Nagar and on
receiving this information, they immediately reached the spot in the Van
and found one male person in burnt condition at plot No. 17 Goverdhan
Park where about 20-30 persons had gathered; that they lifted the burnt
person in the PCR Van and removed him to Safdarjung Hospital; that
the name of victim came to be known as Sher Singh; that no public
person accompanied them from the spot in PCR Van; and that the patient
was crying in pain on the way, he did not have any talk with them. In his
initial cross-examination, this witness stated that they did not make any
effort to talk to the burnt person as he was not in a condition to speak;
and that no relative of the patient met them at the hospital. In his further
cross-examination, the witness admitted the fact that the first message
as received had been about the person having set himself on fire
whereupon they reached the spot.