# STATE DELHI (ADllINISTRATION) v. I.AXMAN KOMAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [1985] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 898
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1985
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 93 and 94 of 1984
- **Bench:** Sen, Rangarath Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-delhi-adllinistration-v-i-axman-komar-ors-9023
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

A. Murder by burning - No eye witness to testify the act of
setting fire to the deceased or to the defence version of
deceased's saree catching fire accidently, except the oral testi-·
mony of witnesses who ran to the spot soon after hearing the
cries for help by the deceased, the three statements implicating
the accused as the perpetrators of the crime made by the deceased
before admission in the hospital, the conduct of the accused when
the deceased's clothes were aflame, the alleged torture of the
deceased for sometime preceding the occurrence over demands for
cash and goods in kind and other circumstances on record -
Circumstantial evidence
corroborated
by
other
evidence
Appreciation of evidence taking judicial notice of facts Sections
3, 11, 55 and 114 of the Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code section
302.
B. Dying declarations, relevance of - They can be used as
E
corroborative evidence and need not be totally rejected -
Evidence Act section 32 (1).
F
G
c. Appeal against acquittal and appeal against conviction,
scope of and the powers of the Supreme Court to-intervene under
Article 136 of the Constitution.
D. Sentence - Imposition of proper punishment and passing a
sentence while interfering in an appeal against acquittal by the
Supreme Court -
Time lag may be one of the factors to be
consideted.
Shakuntala and Srinivas have four sons Subhash, Laxman,
Vinod and Ram Avtar and two daughters. They ordinarily live at
Barot about 50 miles from Delhi alongwith their two daughters.
Subhash and his wife· Madhu (DW5), are school teachers at Delhi
and have two minor children. Sometime in May or June, 1979 these
brothers came to live in ground floor flat No. 9B of the Janata
flats in Ashok Vihar area. They purchased the First Floor Flat
No. 90 previously occupied by Deven Dass and his wife . Ishwari r
f
STATE v. LAXMAN KUMAR
899
Devi (PW4) in 1980 and on their request Deven Dass moved over to
A
Flat No.
280 in the same srea in September October'80. On
February 16, 1980 Lruonan Kumar was married to Sudha, tbe deceased
and they lived in one of the rooms in flat No. 9B. Sudha was in
the f.;mly way and was expecting to deliver a child towards the
end of ~he first week of December, 1980.
A little after 9· p.m. on December 1, 1980, on hearing a
lady's voice crying "llachao Bachao" (Save 0 Save) from flat No.
9B, the neighbours like Jaapal Singh (PWl) ·satish Chopra (PW2)
and Uhwari Devi (PW4) ran to the flat and Tarsem Jain (PWS) who
was near about also came there. PWl saw Lruonan standing at the
entrance door and attempting to close it while Subhash was standing with his hand on the latch of the door which opened to the
courtyard. PWl and others who had collected there forced their
way inside and saw Sudha in s, standing position but .aflame. They
attempted to·extinguish the fire first by pulling out ·the saree
from the body of the lady, put a gunny bag lying nearby on the
burning body and later wrapped her up with a blanket brought by
PW 2 Satish Chopra. When, after 'extinguishing the fire, they
brought Sudha to 'the room. where Shakuntala mother-in-law was
standing,- Sudha made a statement to the effect that it was her
mo~her-in-law who had set her fire after pouring kerosene on her
body. Soon a taxi was brought and the respondents accused took
Sudha for treatment to the Hindu Rao. Hospital. While betng shifted to the taxi, Sudha made another statement to the same effect
aa to the authorship of the crime. Again, when on the way they
picked up Gayatri, one of the ·sisters of Sudha and PW3 and her
husband, she repeated the allegation against her lj!Other-in-law on
seeing her sister PW3 in the taxi. At the suggestion of PW3 Sudha
was taken to St. Stephen's hospital where Sudha was being looked
after for her pre,,,,.ternity care. The witnesses on their own,
believing that Sudha was being taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, went
there and waited for some time but when they found that Sudha was
not being brought there, they
returned
to
their
residen

## Text

_Characters 0–39,970 of 97,635. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39970 for what follows._

A
ll
c
D
898
STATE DELHI (ADllINISTRATION)
v.
I.AXMAN KOMAR & ORS.
SEPTEMBER 23; 1985
[A.N, SEN AND RANGARATH MISRA, JJ.]
A. Murder by burning - No eye witness to testify the act of
setting fire to the deceased or to the defence version of
deceased's saree catching fire accidently, except the oral testi-·
mony of witnesses who ran to the spot soon after hearing the
cries for help by the deceased, the three statements implicating
the accused as the perpetrators of the crime made by the deceased
before admission in the hospital, the conduct of the accused when
the deceased's clothes were aflame, the alleged torture of the
deceased for sometime preceding the occurrence over demands for
cash and goods in kind and other circumstances on record -
Circumstantial evidence
corroborated
by
other
evidence
Appreciation of evidence taking judicial notice of facts Sections
3, 11, 55 and 114 of the Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code section
302.
B. Dying declarations, relevance of - They can be used as
E
corroborative evidence and need not be totally rejected -
Evidence Act section 32 (1).
F
G
c. Appeal against acquittal and appeal against conviction,
scope of and the powers of the Supreme Court to-intervene under
Article 136 of the Constitution.
D. Sentence - Imposition of proper punishment and passing a
sentence while interfering in an appeal against acquittal by the
Supreme Court -
Time lag may be one of the factors to be
consideted.
Shakuntala and Srinivas have four sons Subhash, Laxman,
Vinod and Ram Avtar and two daughters. They ordinarily live at
Barot about 50 miles from Delhi alongwith their two daughters.
Subhash and his wife· Madhu (DW5), are school teachers at Delhi
and have two minor children. Sometime in May or June, 1979 these
brothers came to live in ground floor flat No. 9B of the Janata
flats in Ashok Vihar area. They purchased the First Floor Flat
No. 90 previously occupied by Deven Dass and his wife . Ishwari r
f
STATE v. LAXMAN KUMAR
899
Devi (PW4) in 1980 and on their request Deven Dass moved over to
A
Flat No.
280 in the same srea in September October'80. On
February 16, 1980 Lruonan Kumar was married to Sudha, tbe deceased
and they lived in one of the rooms in flat No. 9B. Sudha was in
the f.;mly way and was expecting to deliver a child towards the
end of ~he first week of December, 1980.
A little after 9· p.m. on December 1, 1980, on hearing a
lady's voice crying "llachao Bachao" (Save 0 Save) from flat No.
9B, the neighbours like Jaapal Singh (PWl) ·satish Chopra (PW2)
and Uhwari Devi (PW4) ran to the flat and Tarsem Jain (PWS) who
was near about also came there. PWl saw Lruonan standing at the
entrance door and attempting to close it while Subhash was standing with his hand on the latch of the door which opened to the
courtyard. PWl and others who had collected there forced their
way inside and saw Sudha in s, standing position but .aflame. They
attempted to·extinguish the fire first by pulling out ·the saree
from the body of the lady, put a gunny bag lying nearby on the
burning body and later wrapped her up with a blanket brought by
PW 2 Satish Chopra. When, after 'extinguishing the fire, they
brought Sudha to 'the room. where Shakuntala mother-in-law was
standing,- Sudha made a statement to the effect that it was her
mo~her-in-law who had set her fire after pouring kerosene on her
body. Soon a taxi was brought and the respondents accused took
Sudha for treatment to the Hindu Rao. Hospital. While betng shifted to the taxi, Sudha made another statement to the same effect
aa to the authorship of the crime. Again, when on the way they
picked up Gayatri, one of the ·sisters of Sudha and PW3 and her
husband, she repeated the allegation against her lj!Other-in-law on
seeing her sister PW3 in the taxi. At the suggestion of PW3 Sudha
was taken to St. Stephen's hospital where Sudha was being looked
after for her pre,,,,.ternity care. The witnesses on their own,
believing that Sudha was being taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, went
there and waited for some time but when they found that Sudha was
not being brought there, they
returned
to
their
residences.
However,
soon after the distress cry for help, a telephone
message to the.police Control Room with telephone No. 100, that a
lady had been set on fire was conveyed and on this First Information having been duly monitored to the mobile police van around
the area in question, PW 17 was deputed to look into the matter.
Learning that Sudha was shifted to the hospital, PW
17 reached
the hospital straighway for investigation. At the hospital a
written declaration is said to have been made which was proved
and relied on by the defence. Sudha died in the early hours of
December 2, 1980.
B
c
D
F
G
ll
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
900
Sill'REME COURT REPORTS
[1985] SUPP;2 S.C.R,
After due investigation the respondents were prosecuted on
a charge of 1J11rder. There is no eye witness to testify to the act
of setting fire to Sudha which is the prosecution case, or to the
factum that of Sudha's saree catching fire accidentaly as alleged
by the defence. At the trial, the prosecution has sought to rely
upon the oral testimony of witnesses who ran to the spot sooc
after hearing the cries of deceased, the three statements 11111de by
her to the various witnesses implicating the accused persons as
the perpetrators of the crime, the conduct of the accused persons
as deposed to by the witnesses when the deceased's clothes were
aflame, the alleged . torture of the deceased for some time
preceding the occurreQCe over deuiand for cash and goods in kind,
and other circumstances available on record and examined as many
as 21 wit!leSses.
According to the defence version the deceased, while trying
to lit the brosene stove for heating up milk for one of the
children of Subhaah who was feeling hungry had her saree lit up
by the stove fir.e which led to the incident; that Laxman her
husband Wll8 away as he luid accompanied the deceased'& sister up
to the bus stand, that Subhaah and Shakuntala did take reasonable
care to put out the fire. To prove this defence they examined
P'ill, the doctor at the hospital, DW2 (same as PW 18) Record
Keeper of the hospital, llW 3 a neighbour, DW4 the taxi driver and
DWS wife of Subhash and also relied on certain documents.
The. trial Judge accepted the prosecution version, nmnely;
(i) the authorship of the crime; (ii) the relationship of the
deceased with Laxman and members of his family having become
strained on account of demands for more dowry and therefore their
decision to do away with her before the child was bom; and (iii)
the factum of failure on the part of the accused persons to take
appropriate steps to save the deceased while the fire was put out
by the neighbours P'ils 1, 2, 4 and 5. Accepting the charges and
convicting the respondents of 111.1rder, he was of the view that the
appropriate punishment to be meted was death. He accordingly
sentenced all the respondents to death and as required by law,
ref erred the matter to the High Court of Delhi for confirmation
of the death sentence. The respondents challenged their conviction by prefer=ing an appeal.
The reference and the appeal were taken up together for
hearing by the High Court. The High Court differed from the trial
Judge on almost every aspect of the testimony· of the prosecution
witnesses, excepting the presence of P'i/s 1, 2, & 5 and their role
, ..
,.
'
STATE v, LAXMAN KUMAR
901
in extinguishing the fire, accepted the defence version,
and
A
discharged the reference and allowed the appeal• The respondents
were, therefore, acquitted. Hence the State appeal No.93 of 1984
and the Indian Federation of Woman Lawyers appeal No. 94 of 1984.
Giving the benefit of doubt to the accused Subhash and
while maintaining the conviction of Shskuntala & Laxman for the
offence of DJJrder ·under section 302 1.p;c. recorded by the
Sessions Judge, allowing the appeal in part by altering the
sentence of death into one of· life imprisonment, the Court,
llELIJ: 1.1 The scope of an appeal against acquittal and the
scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to interfere in such a
matter are well settled. There is no difference between an appeal
against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that
when dealing with an aPt>eal against s.cquittal the Court keeps in
view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused has been fortified by acquittal and if the view adopte-i by the High Court is .a reasonable one and the conclusion
reached by it had its
grounds well set on the materials on
record. [929 A-DJ
1.2 Once evidence has been read and the Supreme Court has
proceeded to review the entire material, there is indeed no limitation in law in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136
B
c
D
of the Constitution for the matter of making a just dedsion.
E
[929 D-E]
1.3 In the instant case, on the evidence it ls clear: (i}
that the relationship of the deceased with the members of the
husbands' family had become strained and she had been subjected
to physical as well as mental torture for some time before the
incident; The physical torture was the outcome of indifference to
her health and the mental torture was on account of demand of
dowry; (ii) that the deceased had not lighted the kerosene atove
that. evening and her wearing apparel had not caught fire
accidently but kerosene had been sprinkled on her clothes and she
had been brought into ·the open space where fire was lit to her
clothes; (iii) that the deceased died not as an outcome of an
accidental fire but on account of a designed move on the part of
the members of the family of the accused persons to put an end to
her life; and (iv) that the husband and mother-in-law of the
. deceased are responsible for the killing of the deceased
by setting her on fire and therefore comnitted the offence of
DJJrder and are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable
under section 302 1.p;c., whi.le. the brother-in-law Subhash is
F
G
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] SUPP:2 s.c.R.
A
entitled to the benefit of doubt, his case being on the border
line. [924 A,H, 925 A, 928 A-B,G-H, 929 A-B, 930 B-D]
Barendra :ic.-r Ghosh v. The King l!aperor, 52 I.A. 40
referred to.
B
2 .1 The cause of any person being found aflame with fire
could always be either of the three alternatives, namely, (a)
suicide/self imnolation; (b) accidental fire; and (c) "being put
on fire by someone". In the instant case: (i) the deceased having
been burnt is not in dispute; (ii) the plea of suicide has not
been advanced either by the prosecution or by the defence. Suicide as the reason of death has rightly not been pressed into
C
service in as llllCh the deceased, inapite of the fact that she had
been suffering physically without any assistance at the advanced
stage of her pregnancy, was getting prepared to play the role of
mother; (iii) the defence plea of accidental fire has to be
rejected by taking judicial notice of the facts (a) the kerosene
stove was in the open space {b) there was a gas stove in the
kitchen and the same was in order but there was no evidence why
D
the
gas stove was not used (c) around 9 p.m. of December it
would be unbearably cold outside the house in Delhi. To work the
kerosene stove would take sometime and if milk for the crying
child was immediately necessary, the kerosene stove would not be
the prop"!r heating medium. On the other hand, the gas stove would
haw ae•. ved the purpose better. Not llllCh of gas was likely to be
E
consumed for heating the milk, nor even for heating up the food
for brother-in-law Subhash; (d) the deceased did not have any
warm clothings on her person and had only a nylon .saree. Being
pregnant lady at an advanced stage she was expected to keep properly robed to avert getting ill from exposure to cold, and
therefore, it is not likely that she would have ventured going
F ·
out to operate the kerosene stove; (e) the deceased being in an
advance stage of pregnancy would have found it difficult to squat
on the floor itself; and (f) it would be natural human conduct
for the decea.sed to have gone to the gas stove in preference to
the kerosene stove. Once the explanation and the defence story of
acccidental fire has been discarded and there being no plea of
G
suicide, the prosecution story that fire was set t.o the saree of
the deceased is the only other way in which she 111JSt have been
burnt. [909 B,E-F, 912 E,G-H, 913 A-DJ
H
3. A dying declaration enjoys almost a sacrosanct status as
a piece of evidence as it comes from mouth of a person who is
about to die and at that stage of life he is not likely to make a
•.
STATE v. LAXMAN KUMAR
903
false statement. 'Ordinarily. a document as valuable as a dying ·
declaration is supposed to be fool proof and is to incorporate
the perticulars which it is supposed to contain. Conviction cennot be based purely on oral dying declarations, despite earlier
cases of conviction solely based thereon. ·However, oral dying
declarationa cannot be totally rejected and the same can be used
as corroborative material. In the instant case, the alleged
written dying declaration cannot be accepted because the explanation of PW 17, the police officer who recorded the dying declaration himself contrary to the Delhi Police rules as to why he
was not looking for a Magistrate or a near relation but getting
it endorsed by the doctor as "atteated the ·recorded statement"
and without indicating the time of the statement and without the
signature of the deceased who was an educated person is unconvin;_
cing and not reliable: Equally no reliance can be made on the
oral statements made by the deceased until . corroborated with
other evidence. [913 F-G, 914 A,D,G-H, 915 (}-H, 916 A-BJ
Kushal llao Vo State of Bombay, A,I,R, 1958 S,C, 22; llalip
S:lngh & Ors. v. State of POD.jab A.I.Ro 1979 S.C. 1173; P6dda
llarayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra Ptadesb, [1975J 4 s.c.c. 153;
Sat Piu1. v. Delhi Adminiattatlon (1976 J 1 s.c.R. 727 referred to.
4. In a suitable case of bride bo1rning, death sentence may
not be improper. However, .in the instant case the Trial Judge had
thought it proper to impose the punishment of death but the High
· Court acquitted all the accused. In the fact situation following
the acquittal in the hands of the High Court and the time lag of
two years since the respondents were acquitted ID.1st be taken into
consideration while imposing a proper punishment. In the instant
case the .Court awarded sentence of imprisonment for life for the
accused. [931 A-CJ
OllSl!llVATION
(It is the obligation of every Court to find out the truth
and act according to law once the truth is discovered. In that
search for truth obviously the Court has to function within the
bounds set by law and act on the evidence placed before it. What
happens outside the Court room when the Court is buay in its
process of adjudication is indeed irrelevant and unless a proper
cushion is provided to keep the proceedings within the court room
dissociated from the heat generated outside the court room either
through the news media or through flutter in the public mind, the
cause of justice is bound to suffer. Mankind has shifted from the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] SUPP;2 s.c.R.
state of nature towards a civilized socieity and it is no longer
the physical power of a litigating individual or the might of the
ruler nor even the. opinion of the majority that takes away the
liberty of a citizen by convicting him and making him suffer a
sentence
of
imprisonment.
Allard
of
punishment
following
conviction at a trial in a system wedded to rule of law is the
outcome of cool deliberation in the court room after adequate
hearing is afforded to the pai'des, accusations are brought
against the accased, the prosecutor is given an opportunity of
supporting the charge and the accused is equally given an
opportunity of meeting the accusations by establishing his
innocence. It is the outcome of cool deliberations and the
screening of the material by the informed mind of the Judge that
leads to determination of the lis• If the cushion is lost and the
Court room is allowed to vibrate with the heat generated outside
it, the adjudicatory procP.ss suffers and the search for truth is
stifled.)
·
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 93 and
94 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.1983 of the Delhi
High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 131 of 1982 and Murder Reference
No. 1 of 1983.
M.S. Gujral, Girish Chandra, R.N. Poddar and Mansoor Ali
for the Appellant in Crl. A. No. 93 of 1984.
R.K. Garg, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, M.V. Katarke, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor and Mrs. C .M. Chopra
for the
Appellants in Crl. A. No. 94 of 1984.
Rajendra Singh, M.N. Shroff and Dilbagrai Sheti for the
Respondents in both the appeals.
The Judb'lllent of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J.
These two appeals are by special
leave. The Delhi Administation has preferred Criminal. Appeal No.
93/84 and the Indian Federation of Women Lawyers and others have
preferred the other Criminal Appeal. Both are directed against
the same
judgment of the Delhi High Court acquitting the
respondents of a charge of murder of one Sudha by setting fire to
her• The Trial court had accepted the prosecution case and
considering it t? be one of the atrocious dowry deaths, had
sentenced each of the respondents to death. The reference ma.de by
the trial Judge was discharged by the High Court and the appeal
preferred by the respondents was allowed·
.,
'I
,. '
'
STATE v. LAXMAN KlJMAK [RANGANATH MISRA, J, J
905
The three respondents are Shakuntala, the mother and two of
her sons, Subhash Chandra and L<.xman Kumar. Shankuntala is the
wife of one Sriniwas. They have four sons Subhash, Laxman, Vinod
and Ram Avtar, and two daughters. The parents oridinarily live at
Barot about 50 miles away from Delhi along with. the two
daughters. Subhash and his wife Madhu, .OW.5, are school teachers
at Delhi. They have two minor children. Laxman Kmliar was married
to Sudha over whose death the present case has arisen. Vinod and
Ram Avtar were living with the two elder brothers at Delhi. Some
time in May or June 1979. these brothers came to live in Flat No.
9-B of the Janata Flats in Ashok Vihar area. This flat is in the
ground floor. Flat No.9-D which is the corresponding first floor
falt was previously in occupation of tenant - Deven Dass - whose
wife Ishwari Devi has·been examined. as PW.4. Some time in 1980,
this flat was purchased by the family of the accused persons and
on their request the tenant shifted to Flat No. 28-D in the same
area about two months before the incident.
A
B
c
On February 16, 1980, Laxman Kumar was married to Sudha.
D
After the· marriage Subhash and members of his family (00.5 and.
the two children) started living in one of ·the rooms in the
ground floor while Laxman and Sudha lived in the other in the
same flat. The upper rooms were occupied by the two other brothers, Vinod and
Ram Avtar.
As it. appears, Shakuntala, the
mother, was oridinarily staying with her husband at Barot but now
and then came· to Delhi and lived the so.ns.
E
Sudha's two sisters, Gayatri, P.W.3 and Snehlata, P.w. 6,
were married to Pawan Kumar Goel and Uamodar Dass Gupta, tespecti vely. Pawan Kumar was lj_ving in Premnagar area while· Damodar
Dass lived in Hari Nagar, both parts of Delhi. Sudha was in the
family way and was expecting to deliver a child towards the end
F
of the first week of December 198U.
ln Flat No. 9-B there was a small kitchen where a gas
operated stove along with a cylinder was kept. A small portion of
the open space in the courtyard by the side of the kitchen had
been covered with asbestos sheets. There also cooking used to be
done with the help of a kerosene stove as the kitchen was small.
Certain other household materials, including stock of kerosene in
tins were kept there.
A little after 9 P.M. on December 1, 1980, a shout was
heard from Flat No. 9-B.
It was a lady's voice crying 'Bachao
Mchao' (save 0 save). On hearing the cry neigh~urs like Jaspal
G
H
A
ll
c
D
F
G
H
90b
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.
Singh, P.w. 1, Satish Chopra, P.W.2 lshwari Devi, P.w. 4 ran to
the flat and P. W. 5 Tarsem Jain who was near about also came
there. P.W. 1 saw Laxman standing at the entrance door and was
attempting to close it while Subhash was standing with his hand
on the latch of the door which opened to the courtyard. He and
others who had collected forced their way inside and saw Sudha in
a standing position but aflame. · The neighbours attempted to
extinguish the fire first by pulling out the saree from the body
of the lady, put a gunny bag lying nearby on the burning body and
when Satish·Chopra brought a blanket, the same was wrapped around
her body. After extinguishing the fire they brought Sudha to the
room where Snakuntala was standing. According to the prosecution
case,Sudha, on seeing the mother-in-law, made a statement to the
effect that it was she who had set her on fire after pouring
kerosene on her body. Soon a taxi was brought and the three members of the family (respondents here) took Sudha for treatment to
the hospital. On the way they picked up P.W.3 and her husband.
Initially the accused persons had decided to take Sudha to Hindu
Rao Hospital ·but on P.W. 3 suggesting that Sudha may be taken to
St. Stephen's Hospital where she was being looked after for her
pre-maternity care, she was ultimately taken there.
Sudha appears to have reached the hospital around 9.45 P.M.
The witnesses on their own believing that Sudha was being taken
to Hindu Rao Hospital, went there and waited for some time but
when they found that the lady was not being brought there, they
returned to their residences. Soon after the cry for help had
been heard, a telephone message had been conveyed to the Police
Control Room having Telephone No. 100 that a lady had been set on
fire and this information had been duly monitored to the mobile
police van around the area in question. P.W. 17 was deputed to
look into the matter. lly the time he reached the spot, Sudha had
already been shifted to the hospital. Therefore, P.W. 17 went
straight to the hospital from there.
'
It is further case of the prosecution that Sudha made
statements soon after the witnesses gat~ered near the flat itself
pointing to the mother-in-law as the killer.
She again made
statement while she was being sl1ifted to the taxi. When P.W.3 and
her husband came into the taxi on the way to the hospital, she is
alleged to have repeated the statement about the incident. At the
hospital a written declaration is said to have been made on which
the prosecution does not rely but which the defence has proved.
Sudha died in the early hours of December 2, 1980. After
due investigation the respondellts wer~ prosecuted on a charge of
•
--
,
...
I ,
STAIB v. I.AXMAN KUMAR lRANGANATH MISRA, J.]
907
nrurder. There is no eye witness to testify to the act.of setting
fire to Sudha which is the prosecution case, or to the fact of
Sudha's saree catching fire accidentally as alleged by the
defence. Prosecution has sought to rely upon the oral testimony
of witnesses who ran to the spot soon after hearing the cries of
Sudha, the statements made by Sudha to the various witnesses
implicating. the accused persons as the perpetrators of the crime,
the conduct of the accused persons as deposed to by the witnesses
when Sudha's clothes were aflame, the alleged torture of Sudha.
for some time preceding the occurrence over demands- for cash and
goods in kind, and other circl.DUStances available on record.
A
B
At the trial the prosecution examined 21 witnesses of whom
c
P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are neighbours who spoke about the incident
from the stage they saw after being attracted by the cries raised
by Sudha. P.Ws. 3 and 6 are the sisters of Sudha. P.W. 7 is her
mother and PW 8 is the elder brother of Sudha and both of them
lived in Calcutta •. These four witnesses have been examined to
speak about the relationship that existed between Sudha on the
D
one side and the husband and other members of his family on the
other.
PW.9 is the doctor who conducted
the
post-mortem
examination. PWs; 10, 11 .and 14 are three constables who had a
role to play in the process of investigation. PW. 12 was the Duty
Officer at Ashok Vihar Police Station at the relevant time. He
was called to prove the papers where the information from the
hospital about Sudha' s death had been recorded. PW. 13 is the
Receptionist at St. Stephen's Hospital who had passed on the
message of Sudha's death to the duty Officer. PW. 15 had received
the message given at 9.15 P.M. on December 1, 1980, about a lady
being burnt by fire. PW. 16 is a Draughtsman attached to the
Crime Branch of the Delhi Police who had measured the different
places in and around the flat where the occurrence took place.
F
PW. 17 is the Investigating Officer. PW. 18 is a doctor who had
examined PW. 1 for burn injuries on his person. PW 19 (wrongly
shown in the paperbook as PW 18) was attached to the St.
Stephen's Hospital as a Record Keeper and he produced certain
documents.
FW.
20 (wrongly shown as PW.19) was also a Duty
Officer attached to the Ashok Vihar Police Station who on
G
receiving the telephone message in the night of December 1, 1980,
had monitored it to the mobile van. FW 21 (wrongly shown as FW.
20) was a formal witness from the Police Malkhana.
According to the defence version, Sudha while trying to lit
the kerosene stove for heating up milk for one of the children of
Subhash who was feeling hungry had her saree lit up by the stove
H
A
B
c
D
E
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] SUPP:2 s.c.R.
fire which led to the incident. Laxman was away as he had accompanied Sudha's sister up to the bus stand. Subhash and Shakuntala
took reasonable care to put off the fire. To prove this defence,
they have examined five witnesses being ow.1, the doctor at the
hospital, DW.2 (same person as PW.18), Record Keeper of the
Hospital, DW.3, a .neighbour, IJW, 4, the driver of the taxi and
DW.S, the wife of Subhash· They have also relied upon certain
documents.
The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution version·
He believed that Sudha was about to aeliver a child on account of
the advanced stage of pregnancy had become somewhat illlDObile·
Kerosene had been sprinkled on her body with a view to killing
her and fire was set to her clothes at the time alleged. The
relationship of Sudha with Laxman and members of his family had
become strained on account of demands for more dowry and the
accused had decided to do away with her before the child was
born. He accepted the oral evidence on the side of the prosecution as to authorship of the crime. He also accepted the prosecution allegation that
the
accused
persona
!.ad
not
taken
appropriate steps and it is the neighbours who put. out the fire.
Accepting the charge and convicting the respondents of 1111rder, he
was of the view that the appropriate punishment to be meted was
death. He accordingly sentenced all the respondento to death and
as required by law, referred the matter to the High Court of
Delhi for·' confirmation of the death sentence. The respondents
challenged their conviction
by
preferring an appeal.
The
reference and the appeal were taken up together for hearing by
the High Court and the High Court discharged the reference and
allowed t~e appeal. The respondents thus came to be acquit~ed.
The High Court differed from the trial Judge on almost
F
every aspect excepting the presence of PWs.1, 2 and 5 and their
role in extinguishing the fire. This is what the High Court
stated :
G
H
''We have no hesitation in agreeing with Mr. Teja Singh
that PWs. 1, 2 and 5 had rushed to the rescue of the
deceased on hearing her cries of 'Bachao Bachao'. They
had actively helped in extinguishing the fire of the
deceased, brought her out, and also probably one of
them brought a taxi in which Sudha was taken to the
hospital. PW._2 states that he had gone to the house
of Sardar Ajit Singh and from there telephoned the
police control room regarding the occurrence. We have
no reason to doubt the correctness of the above statement of P\if,2"
-
~· -
•
STATE v. I.AXMAN KUMAR l RANGANATH MISRA, J. J
909
The High Court made clean di vision of its judgment into separate
A
heads like : (1) Prosecution version of the occurrence; (2)
Motive; (3) Dying declaratios; (4) Medical evidence; (5) Conduct
of the accused; (6) Investigation; and (7) Conclusion. While
dealing ~th the prosecution version of the occurrence, the High
Court extracted substantial portions of the statements given
under section 313, Cr. P.C. by each of the accused persons.
B
That Sudha was burnt at the relevant time has never been in
dispute. There could be three alternatives for her being burnt
(1) suicide; (2) accidental fire; and (3) being put on fire. The
plea of suicide has not been advanced either by the prosecution
or by the defence. It is true that Sndha had been suffering
physically as found by the learned tr.ial Judge and accepted by
the High Court on account of the fact that there was no one to
assist her in the work at hotne and the entire load came up on
her. Yet, she had withstood all that and within a week or so she
was about to be relieved of the heavy burden she carried on delivery of the child. Nature, it is said, processes the instincts of
the mother to be in such a way that by the time she is about to
deliver the child, a total transformation comes about. The record
does not have any indication that Sudha ever thought of putting
an end to her life. On the other hand, we are led to hold that
like every expecta11.t mother she was looking forward to see the.
fruits of the long waiting and the suffering she had under·gone
for b<:getting the child. There is material that she was preparing ..
warm clothings for the baby to arrive and getting prepared to
play the role of tnather. Suicide as the re.ason of death has,
therefore, rightly not been pressed into service l~.aving the two
other alternatives of accidental fire as pleaded by the defence
and the intentional killing by burning her as pleaded by the
prosecution, for consideration.
Laxtnan Kumar in his statement under s. 313 Cr. P.C. had
suggested that Jaspal Singh, PW. l and Satish Chopra, PW. 2 had
formed a group against hitn and his brothers. Subhash has,
however, not stated in that strain. J:A/.5 spoke about dispute with
Jaspal over unauthorised construction and blockage of the water
passage. PW. 1 Jaspal Singh has not been cross examined in this
regard excepting a bare suggestion at one pl.ace. Jaspal Singh, as
his evidence shows, is on a job which keeps h1tn mostly out of
Delhi and he did not appear to be involved in any politics of the
locality. The anitnosity of the principal prosecution witnesses
which the accused persons wanted to suggest has, therefore, not
'been established in this case.
'
c.
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19851 sUPP;2 s.c.a.
We have already indicated that both the trial Judge as also
the High Court have accepted the fact that PWs. 1, 2 and 5 rushed
to the spot on hearing Sudha 's cry for help. If relationship
between these witnesses on one side and members of the family of
the accused on the other had been strained as alleged, the spontaneous response which crune from these witnesses would not have
been found. We cannot lose sight of the fact that one of the
curses of OXJdern living, particularly in highly urbanised areas
is to have a life cut off from the C0111111lnity so as even not to
know the neighbours. Indifference to what happens around is the
way of life. That being the ordinary behaviour of persons living
in the city, if added to it there was aniOXJsity, these witnesses
would certainly not have behaved in the manner they have. We,
therefore, are not impressed by the doubts expressed by the High
Court about the veracity of their evidence. these witnesses not
only rushed to the spot but took a leading part in putting out
the fire from Sudha's person and ensured her despatch for medical
assistance at the shortest interval. As expected of a good neighbour, information was given to the police, a blanket was made
available, a taxi was called and human sympathy and assistance to
the extent possible was extended. If the accusation of aniOXJsity
and illfeeling is not.accepted, these witnesses must be taken to
be not only competent being present at the spot, but also acceptable in respect of what they say as being truthful witnesses.
The trial Judge had appreciated their evidence that way and we
see no justification for the High Court to have differed from
that. It is pertinent to notice that PW.l suffered a burn injury
and this is supported by medical evidence. Even the High Court
accepted the position that this injury was suffered when P11 1 was
attempting to put out the fire on Sudha's person.
PW .4 is a lady who had been living in the upper floor Flat
No. 9-D until about October 1980. Sudha 111USt have had occasion to
know her very intimately because they lived together for about
eight OXJnths. Sudha came from an urban background being a resi-
.dent of Calcutta. In her new setting she must have looked for
some company. ow.5, the only other lady in the family, worked in
/
a School and possibly her relationship with Sudha was not very
cordial though they lived together. In these circumstances it is
only natural that Sudha would have turned to PW. 4 Ishwari Devi,
for being in friendly terms. The evidence of PW.4 shows that they
were quite close to each other and Sudha used to open her mind to
her every now and then. It is her evidence that even after she
had shifted to her new apartment, they used to meet alOXJst everyr1
"' 'I....
)
STATE v. LAXMAN KUMAR l RANGANATH 111SllA, J • )
911
day. A suggestion was made that PW. 4 had developed animosity
against the accused persons as she and her husband had been
forced to vacate the tenanted premises of Flat No. 9-D. There is
no evidence of any
pressure and consequently no ill-feeling.
Knowing the difficulties which the family of the accused faced on
account of want of space, PW. 4 and her husband appear to have
volunteered to shift to the new residence. It was also suggested
to this witness that they were owing Rs.185 to the grocery shop
of the accused Laxman and since the money was demanded, strained
relationship had developed. 1'he witness has clearly stated that
the amount had been paid when Laxman had demanded the money about
a month after the death of Sudba. A current credit of the type
from the grocery shop could . be no reason for developing bad
relationship. In the circumstances we do not see justification to
hold that PW.
4 had strained relationship with the accused
persons.
l1r. Hajendra Singh, Senior Advocate for the respondents
with his usual persuasiveness
contended that the evidence of
these witnesses should be rejected as has been done by the lij.gh
Court as each one of them has improved his version by a lot of
embellishment. Statements under s. 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure regarding the oral dying declarations made by these
witnesses were to the effect that Sudha had stated that it was
the mother-in-law alone who had sprinkled kerosene on the clothes
and set fire to her clothes. But later these witnesses impiicated
the husband and his elder brother as being involved in the
crime. He also contended that the documents contemporaneously
prepared by the police in normal discharge of their duties where
the cause of fire has been mentioned should be preferred to the
oral evidence particularly when the witnesses have substantially
changed their version and in the back.drop of a written dying
declaration attested by the attei:iding doctor. According to Mr.
Singh, there is evidence that there was a meeting over the issue
of Sudha's death held in the morning of the 2nd Uecember, 1980,
in which the 16cal residents participate'd and the conduct of the
witnesses before and after this meeting sharply differed. He
suggested that the stand adopted by the prosecution in regard to
Sudha' s death was obviously evolved at this meeting and one uniform stand ~aken at an earlier stage was uniformly changed.after
the meeting. He pleaded that the oral evidence regarding Sudha's
declarations should be discarded. He also supported the High
Court
1 s
finding that the relationship between Sudha and her
paternal relations on one side and Laxman and his relations on
the other was very cordial and, therefore, there could be no
A
B
c
D
E
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ii
SUPR!lMt COURT N.EPORTS
[1985j SUPP.2 s.c.R.
mbtive for killing the mother-to-be. According to Hr. Singh, once
the neighbours knew, on the basis of Sudha 's declarations, that
she was set on fire by her husband, his brother and mother,
they
would not· have permitted Sudha to be taken to the hospital in the
taxi in their company only. We shall deal with these aspects and
his otheF submissions in due course and at the relevant places.
The cumulative effect of the evidence of these four witnesses goes to establish that around 9 P.M. on December 1, 1980,
Sudha had shouted for help saying that she was on fire. On' hearing this cry, PW. 2 telephoned the Police Control Room from a
neighbour's telephone and these four witnesses rushed to the
spot. On approaching the flat they found Laxman at the main entrance door trying to close it and Subhash at the connecting door
between the room and the open space partially covered with
asbestos sheets. They found Sudha in a standing posture aflame.
Shakuntala was noticed standing in another room. They forced
thems~lves into the room, came up to Sudha, started removing the
saree on her body which had caught fire and finding a gunny bag
lying on the floor, used the same for putting otf the fire. PW. 2
managed to get a blanket in which they later wrapped Sudha and
helped her in being removed to the hospital. There is clear evidence that on their own they went Lo the Hindu Kao Hospital
thinking that sudha would be brought there for treatment.
'The evidence also ihdicates that there was a gas stove in
the kitchen and the same was in order. lt is the defence version
that LJW. 5 had gone to tiarot on November 30, 1980, and respondent
ohakuntala had come the previous day along with Subhash. When
Subhash returned to the house a few minutes before Y at night,
Sudha wanted to warm up the cooked food for being served to him.
At that point of time, the child of Subhash (the other had gone
with_ the mother) cried tor ruilk, Shakuntala wanted the milk to be
heated up for the child and asked Sudha to give the milk first
tur the crying child and then attend to Subhash. It is at that
point of time that Sudha wanted to light the kerosene stove. The
kerosene stove was in the open space. Judicial notice can be
taken 'of tht> fact that around .9 P.M. of Uecember it would be
unbearably cold outside the house in Delhi. To work the kerosene
stove would take sometime and if milk for the crying child was
immediately necessary, the kerosene stove would not be the proper
heating medium.
On the other hand,
the gas stove would have
served the purpose better. Not much
ot gas was
likely to be
consumed for heating the milk, nor cveu tor heating up the food
for Subhash. We haxe to tak.e note of ... the position that Sudha did
J
.•
•
.(
STATE v. LAXMAN KUMAR [RANGANATH MISRA, J.]
913
not have any warm clothings on her person and as the evidence
shows, she had only a nylon saree. Being a pregnant lady at an
advance stage she was expected to ~ep properly robed to avert
getting ill from exposure to cold. It is, therefore, not likely
that she wouid have ventured going out to operate the kerosene
stove. There is another feature which also must be
taken note
of. She being in an advanced stage of pregnancy would have found
it very difficult to squat on fhe floor for operating the
kerosene stove which was on the floor itself.