Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 18 February, 2026
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(204) CRA
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M)
Decided on: 18.02.2026
Inder Singh & another ......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate
Ms.Vaishnavi Sikka Advocate
Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate
Mr. Sidheshwar Hans, Advocate, for appellants.
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*****
Ramesh Chander Dimri J. :
1. Through present appeal, appellants/accused (for brevity,
‘appellants’), challenge judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2015
and order of sentence dated 21.01.2015 passed in Sessions Case
No.37 of 3.9.2010 titled as “State
“State Vs. Inder Singh & another“
another”,, arising
out of FIR No.379 dated 05.05.2010 under Sections 302, 307 and 34
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC), registered at Police
Station Sadar Hisar, through which, appe
appellants
llants were convicted underSection 302 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life each with a direction to pay a fine of Rs.5000/
Rs.5000/–
1 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:31 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -2-
each. In default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Prosecution case, as unfolded by police proceedings
Ex.PF/1, is that on 05.05.2010, Ms.Shakuntala and Baby Anu, wife
and daughter respectively of appellant Inder Singh, were admitted to
General Hospital, Hisar with burn injuries. On intimation, police
officials i.e. ASI Radhey Shyam PW6, collected Ruqa and MLRs.
They obtained opinion of concerned Doctor about their fitness to
make statement, who intimated that they have been referred to
PGIMS, Rohtak but it came to light that they both are admitted to
Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar. Police officials reached there and PW6,
ASI Radhey Shyam obtained opinion of concerned Doctor about
fitness of Shakuntala to make statement. She was declared fit for said
purpose, Ex.PJ. In turn, police presented an application before Shri
Tayyab Hussain, the then JMIC, Hisar for recording statement of
Shakuntala. In turn, said Magistrate, PW3 reached Soni Burn
Hospital, Hisar and recorded her statement, Ex.PF. In said statement,
she inter-alia stated that she is 28 years old and has two daughters.
On the night of 05.05.2010, she was sleeping with her daughter. Her
mother-in-law was also sleeping at that time. All in her family were
present in house at that time. Her husband and brother-in-law
(Dewar) were present but her sister-in-law (Jethani) was not present.
Someone poured kerosene on her. She knows nothing as to who
poured kerosene on her. Her husband and mother-in-law brought her
2 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -3-
to hospital. She was sleeping at that time. No one has put pressure on
her. She has nothing more to say. After recording said statement,
PW3 Magistrate attested it. PW1 Doctor of said hospital also
certified that she remained fit in the process of recording her
statement. PW3, Magistrate then appended his certificate at bottom of
said statement that said Shakuntala remained in good/fit state of mind
in the process of recording her statement and it is a true version of her
statement. Nothing has been added to or substracted therefrom. This
statement was recorded on 05.05.2010 at 5.00 a.m. PW6, ASI Radhey
Shyam, endorsed the same and sent it to Police Station Sadar Hisar
for registration of a case. He then reached spot. On the basis of said
statement, above-mentioned FIR was registered under Sections
307/34 IPC. PW11 SI Dharambir reached spot and took over
investigation. He photographed it and got it demarcated. Its rough
site-plan was prepared. Various articles were collected from the spot
and taken into possession. Statements of witnesses were recorded.
3. On that very day, Anu aged about 8-9 months died at
Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar. Inquest proceedings were conducted and
autopsy on the dead body was done at General Hospital, Hisar. Her
postmortem report Ex.PH was collected. Special report in the case
was sent and Section 302 IPC was added. Statement of PW4,
Dharambir, was recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C. on 5-5-2010, on
the basis of which appellants were arrested on 06.05.2010.
Disclosure statements were suffered by appellants in police custody.
3 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -4-
In consequence to such statements, they led police party to place of
occurrence and got it demarcated. They were produced before Court
on 07.05.2010 and were sent to judicial custody. On 06.05.2010,
Shakuntala also succumbed to her burn injuries. Inquest proceedings
under Section 174 Cr.P.C., in respect of her dead body were
conducted and post-mortem examination on the same was also
conducted from said hospital. Copy of her post-mortem report Ex.PH
was collected.
4. On completion of investigation against appellants, final
report dated 09.06.2010 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and
presented before concerned Area Magistrate, who after complying
with provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to Court
of Sessions. Learned Sessions Court, after hearing prosecution and
appellants on issue of framing of charges, vide order dated
03.09.2010, charge-sheeted appellants under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty to charges and claimed
trial.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses
in trial. It also proved documents mentioned in impugned judgment.
6. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant
Inder Singh inter-alia stated that he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the case. Shakuntala always remained in tension
because of birth of two female children through surgery. Doctor
advised her not to conceive again in hope of a male child as it will
4 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -5-
cause danger to her life. Said appellant had deputed his mother to
take care of Shakuntala and her babies in ailment. On the date of
occurrence in question, he came late in evening as he was posted as
Driver of a dumper which used to bring stones from Rajasthan and
unload the same on a crusher at Khanak. Shakuntala told him at that
time that she was putting kerosene in a stove arm-can. It spilled on
her clothes. Anu got up in the meanwhile. Shakuntala took her in
lap and started stove because of which fire broke-out. Said appellant
immediately intimated father of Shakuntala. He met them in Hisar.
He instigated Shakuntala so that he could get much more money
from them. He tortured Shakuntala but she did not say anything
against them. Appellant Amit, in his such statement, inter-alia stated
that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He
was not present at home on that day. Police has falsely implicated
him on false statement of complainant who wanted to extract money
from him after death of Shakuntala.
7. In their defence, appellants examined 2 witnesses.
8. On completion of evidence of parties, Court of Shri Raj
Kumar Yadav, then Learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Hisar, heard them
on merits of the case. After such hearing, vide impugned judgment
dated 17.01.2015 and order of sentence dated 21.01.2015, it
convicted both appellants in above stated terms. Aggrieved of said
conviction and sentence, appellants are in appeal before us.
5 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -6-
9. We have heard Learned Senior Counsel for appellants as
well as Learned Addl.A.G., Haryana, on merits of appeal. With
their assistance, we have perused the record.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for appellants has argued that
Shakuntala was under tension because of medical advice that if she
conceives in future, it may endanger her life. Due to said tension,
when she was in the process of putting kerosene in stove having
Anu in her lap, she ignited stove because of which kerosene caught
fire resulting in their burning. Immediately after occurrence,
appellant Inder Singh took both of them to hospital with his mother
and also intimated PW-4 Dharambir. Therefore subsequent conduct
of appellants was of a prudent person. Prosecution itself alleges that
appellant Inder Singh was living in the house in question with his
two brothers. In her statement Ex.PF, Shakuntala states that she does
not know as to who lit fire. PW3 Shri Tayyab Hussain deposes that
Shakuntala was not in fit state of mind. Since second brother of
appellant Inder Singh was not arrayed as an accused and was also not
tried, it cannot be said that it was appellant Amit who put
Shakuntala and Anu on fire. In view thereof, prosecution has falsely
implicated appellants in the case in question. For said false
implication, appellants deserve to be acquitted of charges framed
against them in the case in question.
11. Per Contra, learned Addl.Advocate General, while
referring to Trial Court record, has argued that statement Ex.PF of
6 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -7-
Shakunatala was a dying declaration. It was on the basis of said
dying declaration that FIR in question was registered. Contents of
said dying declaration inspire confidence. When Shakuntala and Anu
were put to fire, no one except appellants and their family members
were present in the house as occurrence took place on intervening
night of 04.05.2010 and 05.05.2010. May be that in dying
declaration Ex.PF, Shakuntala stated that she does not know as to
who lit fire but fact remains that appellants and their family
members were the only ones present in the house and they are under
a mandate to explain the occurrence in question. Said fact was in
special knowledge of appellants but they have concealed it from
Court, for which an adverse inference has to be drawn against them.
Plea of false implication raised by appellants is not substantiated by
evidence on record. Stand of Shakuntala being in tension for above
mentioned reason, has not been proved on record and prosecution has
proved offences in question against both appellants to hilt.
Appellant Amit was living in same house. Second brother of
appellant Inder Singh may not have been arrayed as an accused but
this by itself cannot be of any benefit to appellants entitling them to
acquittal. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of appeal.
12. To prove its case, prosecution has led following
evidence:-
12.1 PW1 Dr.Rajat Soni from Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar has
inter alia deposed that on 05.05.2010 at about 3.30 a.m., Shakuntala
7 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -8-
and Anu were admitted to his hospital with 100% and 90% burns
respectively. He sent a ruqqa Ex.PA about their admission. Anu
expired on that very date at 12.30 p.m. He accordingly sent a ruqqa
Ex.PWA/1 to Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. Bed head ticket of
Anu is Ex.PA/2. Shakuntala died on 06.05.2010 in said hospital at
08.10 p.m. and he sent a ruqqa Ex.PA/3 on that very date to police.
Original bed head ticket of Shakuntala is Ex.PA/4.
12.2 PW2 Subhash Chand is a draftsman. As per his
deposition, on 27.05.2010, on asking of PW11 SI Dharambir, he
visited place of occurrence and on pointing of said PW, prepared
scaled plan Ex.PB with correct marginal notes.
12.3 PW3 Shri Tayyab Hussain, posted as JMIC, Hisar at that
time, has inter alia deposed that on 05.05.2010, on an application
moved by police, he recorded statement of Shakuntala under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. who accepted same as correct and put her thumb
impression thereon. He then gave certificate Ex.PG below said
statement. It contains his signature.
12.4 PW4 Dharambir is father of Shakuntala. He inter-alia
deposes that his daughter was married to appellant Inder Singh on
20.05.2003. He spent sufficient money on her marriage. After
marriage, appellant Inder Singh, his brother Kuldeep and Amit as
well as his mother Badamo started harassing his daugher for more
dowry. They demanded motorcycle and money. She told said facts
to said witness. From said wedlock, two daughters named Kannu
8 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -9-
aged 5 years and Anu aged 3 years were born. At their birth he had
given sufficient dowry and articles. Despite that, said persons were
not happy. One year prior to occurrrence, appellant Amit was
married to one Kavita. Her parents gave sufficient dowry because of
which said persons started harassing Shakuntala for motorcycle and
cash. He paid Rs.20,000/- twice to Badamo (mother-in-law of
deceased Shakuntala) and also gave a buffalo worth Rs.2,00,000/-.
He assured said persons of rest of demanded dowry but they
cautioned him that they will kill his daughter if motorcycle and
money is not given. He took time one month from them. His son
Rajbir left Shakuntala at her matrimonial home. On 04.05.2010, at
about 1.00 a.m., he received a telephonic message from appellant
Inder Singh etc. that they have burnt Shakuntala and Anu. If he can
save them, he should come to General Hospital, Hisar. He, his son
Ramesh and brother Rakesh then reached said hospital. Shakuntala
and Anu stood admitted there. They were referred to PGIMS,
Rohtak but he got them admitted to Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar. Anu
died in said hospital. Magistrate recorded statement of Shakuntala.
She died in said hospital at 8.00 p.m. Shakuntala disclosed to him
that Badomo and Kavita caught her. Amit and Inder poured kerosene
on her and Kuldeep set her afire but she did not disclose said facts to
Magistrate as Inder Singh etc. had threatened her that if she does so,
they will burn her other daughter also. Autopsy on dead body of
Shakuntala and Anu was conducted in General Hospital, Hisar. Said
9 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -10-
witness had disclosed all facts to police but it did not take action as
per his statement. He does not know as to what police recorded in his
statement. Police only challaned appellant Inder and Amit but not
remaining ones.
12.5 PW5 Dr.Amit Kumar has inter-alia deposed that on
05.05.2010 at 4.45 p.m., he was posted in General Hospital, Hisar
and conducted autopsy on dead body of Anu which was identified by
PW4 Dharambir and another. He detected injuries mentioned in his
affidavit Ex.PW5/A on her person. Her cause of death was burn and
its complications which were ante mortem in nature and were
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. Her post-mortem
report is Ex.PH.
12.6 PW6, ASI Radhey Sham, is first Investigating Officer
and subsequently, remained associated in investigation. He inter-alia
deposed that on 05.05.2010, he received a telephonic message from
General Hospital, Hisar about admission of Shakuntala and Anu. He
then with others reached said hospital and collected their ruqa as
well as MLRs. He moved an application before concerned Medical
Officer about fitness of Shakuntala and Anu to make statement who
opined that they both had been referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. He then
came to know that injured stood admitted to Soni Burn Hospital,
Hisar. He accordingly reached there. On opinion of concerned
Doctor about fitness of Shakuntala to make statement, he went to
residence of Shri Tayyab Hussain, then learned JMIC, Hisar and
10 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -11-
moved an application for recording her statement. Said Magistrate
then accompanied him to Soni hospital and recorded the statement of
Shakuntala. He appended his endorsement on this statement and sent
it for registration of a case. He intimated SHO of said Police Station
about facts of the case and then reached the spot. PW11, SI
Dharambir and others also reached there. He then handed-over
investigation to PW11. In his presence, PW11, SI Dharambir took in
police possession a carpet having burnt pieces, one plastic tin half-
filled with kerosene, few clothes in burnt condition and converted
them to separate parcels. Same were taken into police possession.
Said witness attested recovery memo in that regard. Thereafter, they
received an intimation that Anu has expired. They accordingly
reached Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar and conducted inquest
proceedings. Her body was handed-over to him for autopsy. He got
the same conducted from General Hospital, Hisar. After autopsy,
relevant documents were handed-over to him which he handed-over
to SI Dharambir.
12.7 PW7, Ramesh Kumar, inter-alia deposed that Shakuntala
was his niece, married to appellant Inder. Dowry articles were given
in her marriage. Two daughters were born therefrom. Her in-laws
used to taunt and harass her for bringing less dowry. They demanded
motorcycle and cash money. Shakuntala told said facts to them after
returning from her matrimonial home. At the time of birth of
children of Shakuntala, his cousin PW4 Dharambir had given
11 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -12-
sufficient articles to appellant’s family. However, they were not
happy with the same. One year prior to occurrence in question,
marriage of Kuldeep, brother of appellant Inder, was performed. His
in-laws gave good dowry. For said reason, appellant Inder etc. started
harassing Shakuntala. PW4 Dharambir accordingly paid Rs.20,000/-
to them and also gave a buffalo. Despite that they were not happy
and demanded motorcycle as well as cash in dowry. On intervening
night of 05.05.2010, he received a telephonic message from PW4
Dharambir that Shakuntala has been burnt by appellants and their
family members and if they can save her, they can reach hospital. On
such intimation, he, PW4 Dharambir, Rajbir and Balwan reached
General Hospital, Hisar and found Shakuntala and Anu lying on a
stretcher in hospital in a burnt condition. No member from her in-
law’s family was present there. PW4 Dharambir, got them admitted
to General Hospital, Hisar and then to Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar.
Statement of Shakuntala was recorded in Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar.
She disclosed to them that her sister-in-law Kavita and mother-in-law
Badomo caught hold of her whereas appellant Inder and Amit put
kerosene on her and her brother-in-law Kuldeep set her on fire. She
could not give said statement before Magistrate as appellant Inder
had threatened that if she discloses these facts to Magistrate, her
elder daughter Kannu would be killed. Said facts were disclosed by
them to police but same were not recorded in police proceedings.
12 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -13-
12.8 PW8, DSP Ramphal (Retd.), on 09.06.2010, was posted
as Inspector/SHO of Police Station Sadar Hisar. He prepared final
report containing his signature under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He has
deposed in this regard.
12.9 PW9, Dr. Vishal Goyal, a Medical Officer posted in
General Hospital, Hisar has inter-alia deposed that on 07.05.2010, he
conducted autopsy on dead body of Shakuntala and prepared the
post-mortem report Ex.PL. Cause of death of Shakuntala was burns
and its complications.
12.10 PW10, Dinesh Kumar Prajapat, has inter-alia deposed
that on 05.05.2010, he medically examined Shakuntla wife of Inder
Singh resident of Dahima and found as under :
I) Patient was conscious, cooperative and pulse oriented
and BP was not recorded.
II) Superficial to deep burn all over body except right
side of chest. Peeling of his skin at all over body with
exposed raw under neath area. Nature of injury were kept
under observation. Kind of weapon was burn or fire
caused within six hours. Patient was brought by
Dharambir father of injured Shakuntla.
12.10.1. He has also deposed that Ex.PM is correct carbon copy of
MLR of Shakuntala which bears his signature and is true according
to original.On the same day at about 2.00 a.m. Anu was examined by
13 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -14-
him. It was a case of alleged history of burns at village Dahima at
about 12.30 a.m. Injured was conscious. Pulse and BP were not
recordable. Patient was brought by Dharambir and he found
following injuries on her:-
” Superficial to deep burns involving whole except part
of face and part of left arm. Skin was peeling all over
body raw under neath reddish area. Nature of injuries
was kept under observation and caused by fire within
duration of 6 hours.
12.10.2. He has also deposed that Ex.PN is correct carbon copy of
MLR of Anu which bears his signature and is true according to
original. On that very date, police moved an application before him
about fitness of Shakuntala and Anu to give statement and he gave
his opinion Ex.PI that they had been referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for
further management.
12.11 PW11, SI Dharambir, inter-alia deposed that on
05.05.2010 while posted as SHO of Police Station, Hisar, he received
a statement Ex.PF sent by PW6 ASI Radhey Shyam. On its basis, he
registered FIR and sent special reports thereof to higher officers. He
then, with other police officials, reached Village Dahima. PW6 ASI
Radhey Shyam met him there and handed-over investigation to him.
Said witness prepared rough site-plan Ex.PN and lifted above-
mentioned articles from place of occurrence with one pair of shoes.
Same were converted to parcels and were taken into police
14 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -15-
possession through a separate recovery memo attested by ASI
Radhey Shyam and another. He then received an intimation that
Anu has expired. He accordingly reached Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar
and prepared her inquest report. In respect of subsequent
investigation done by him in the case in question, he has reiterated
the stand deposed by PW6 ASI Radhey Shyam. He also deposed that
on 06.05.2010, he arrested appellants who on interrogation made
their respective disclosure statements leading to demarcation of place
of occurrence by them separately. He has proved case property
recovered from spot as Ex.MO/1 to Ex.MO/3.
12.12 PW12, ASI Suresh Kumar, has deposed about arrest of
appellants on 06.05.2010 in the manner deposed by PW11 SI
Dharambir and also about appellants making their respective
disclosure statements leading to demarcation of place of occurrence
through separate memos.
13.1 In their defence, appellants have examined Satbir Singh,
Ex-Sarpanch of Village Dahima DW1. In his deposition, he inter-alia
states that his house is situated near the house of appellant Inder. On
05.05.2010 at about 1/1.30 a.m., he heard screams on which he went
to house of appellant Inder. DW2 Ram Chander, Member
Panchayat whose house is also situated near house of appellant
Inder also reached spot. Shakuntala and Anu had caught fire and
some tea was lying in utensils (patila). He and DW2 Ram Chander
made enquiry from Shakuntala who stated that when she was
15 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -16-
preparing tea, some kerosene spilled on her clothes and clothes of
Anu. Fire broke out when she ignited the matchstick. She was
putting kerosene in stove and Anu was in her lap. In that process,
her clothes also caught fire. Shakuntala was sleeping on a cot and her
mother-in-law was also sleeping on a different cot near cot of
Shakuntala and Anu. Daughter Kannu of Shakuntala was sleeping
with her mother-in-law. said witness etc. took both to Civil Hospital,
Hisar. PW4, Dharambir, also came there with several persons. They
assaulted Inder Singh and his family members and prevented them
from attending them in hospital. PW4, took both of them to Soni
Burn Hospital, Hisar. Anu succummbed to her injuries during night
time on that very date whereas Shakuntala died on next day. They
then returned to their village. Some women of his village intimated
him that both female babies of Shakuntala were born through surgery
because of which Doctor had opined that if she conceives again, her
life will be endangered. Because of that reason, Shakuntala used to
remain in tension and was mentally depressed. After last rites, they
had gone to village of PW4 Dharambir and had convened Panchayat
to make an enquiry about material facts but he did not agree with
compromise and rather demanded Rs.5 lakhs. Appellants belong to
down-trodden community and could not arrange said heavy amount
for compromise. Appellant Amit was not present in his house on that
day.
16 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -17-
13.2 DW2 Ram Chander, in his examination-in-chief, has
almost reiterated the stand taken by DW1 Satbir Singh in his
examination-in-chief. Narration of his deposition will rather be a
repetition.
14. Having summarized evidence on record, we may now
come to its appreciation. As per prosecution case, Shakuntala was
legally wedded wife of appellant Inder Singh whereas Anu was his
daughter and appellant Amit is his real brother. Deposition of PW4,
Dharambir, is categoric that Shakuntala was married to appellant
Inder Singh on 20.05.2005 and two daughters were born to her out of
said marriage. His deposition also establishes that on the date of
incident in question, both were living in matrimonial home of
Shakuntala. Appellants do not dispute that on the date of occurrence
in question, appellant Inder Singh, Amit, mother of appellant Inder
Singh and his brother Kuldeep, were living in the house in which
Shakuntala and her daughters Anu as well as Kannu were living. If
cross-examination conducted on PW4, Dharambir, is perused
minutely, it shows that appellants have not disputed said facts. To
that very effect is deposition of PW7, Ramesh Kumar, brother of
PW4 Dharambir. In cross-examination of said two witnesses, there
is nothing material to doubt them in respect thereof. Their evidence
and absence of challenge to it on above-mentioned aspects, prove
said facts on record.
17 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -18-
15. However, dispute between prosecution and appellants is
in respect of manner of occurrence taking place in intervening night
of 05.05.2010 and 06.05.2010. Prosecution alleges that in
intervening night of said dates, appellants poured kerosene on them
and then set them on fire when they were sleeping in courtyard. As
against its such stand, appellants say that Shakuntala had given birth
to two daughters through surgeries and concerned Doctor had
advised her not to conceive in future and if she conceives, it may
endanger her life because of which she used to remain in tension.
They then allege that on said intervening night, when Shakuntala
was in the process of putting kerosene in stove while having Anu in
her lap, kerosene spilled to her clothes because of which when she lit
the fire, both caught fire and received burn injuries. It is in evidence
that on said intervening night, there was no one else in matrimonial
house of Shakuntala except Inder Singh, Amit, their mother and
brother Kuldeep. Appellants also do not dispute said evidence.
However, above-mentioned stand about catching of fire in the
manner alleged is not borne out from evidence on record. PW6, ASI
Radhey Shyam and PW11, SI Dharambir, specifically depose that
when they reached the spot they collected one carpet, a plastic can of
kerosene, one salwar, one chunni, some burnt clothes of children and
one pair of slippers therefrom and took same into police possession.
If site-plans Ex.PN & Ex.PB are perused, same show that said
articles were recovered from courtyard of house belonging to Inder
18 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -19-
Singh and Amit. No stove or traces thereof were found at that spot
by said two prosecution witneesses. Nothing is said to have been
recovered by them from kitchen of said house. Furthermore, at 1.00
a.m. of said intervening night, Shakuntala cannot be expected to be
preparing tea either for herself or for anyone else. In the absence of
traces of stove and tea preparing utensils etc. recovered from spot,
we find that said stand taken by appellants is not supported much
less proved by evidence on record. Furthermore, defence has not
produced any evidence to establish that Shakuntala was under any
kind of tension because of the reason set forth by them. No medical
record of Shakuntala has been brought on record. No Doctor who
advised her in the alleged manner was examined. True it is, that
appellants have examined DW1 Satbir Singh and DW2 Ram Chander
in support of their said plea. However, said witnesses did not
participate in investigation. There is no representation or application
moved by appellants prior to date of examination of said witnesses
that police intentionally did not join them in investigation and did
not examine them as witnesses. They have been brought forth in the
case in question only on the date of their respective examinations. In
view of said facts, their depositions cannot be accepted to hold that
occurrence in question took place in the manner set forth by
appellants and that Shakuntala, on the date of occurrence in
question, was in tension because of reason alleged. It appears that
they have been procured by appellants to set up a plausible version to
19 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -20-
controvert prosecution case. Their depositions are also liable to be
discarded as utensils used for preparing tea were not found at spot.
May be that they also say that Shakuntala told them that she had
caught fire while igniting stove. However, except their self serving
statement, there is nothing no-corroboration thereof available on
record.
16. PW1, Rajat Soni, has proved that on said intervening
night, Shakuntala and Anu were admitted to Soni Burn Hospital
with 100% burns and 90% burns respectively. His deposition also
establishes that he sent ruqa Ex.PA about them and Anu died in his
hospital on that very date at about 12.30 p.m. in respect of which he
sent a ruqa Ex.PA/1. He has also proved bed-head ticket of Anu as
Ex.PA/2. His evidence establishes death of Shakuntala in his
hospital on 06.05.2010 at 08.10 p.m. and factum of his handing over
ruqa in respect thereof to police. He has also proved bed-head ticket
of Shakuntala on record. Documents proved by him show that
Shakuntala and Anu had a history of burn injuries by pouring
kerosene.
17. Deposition of PW5, Dr.Amit Kumar, establishes that on
05.05.2010 at about 4.45 p.m. he conducted autopsy on dead body of
Anu and prepared her post-mortem report whereas deposition of
PW9, Dr.Vishal Goyal, establishes that when he was posted as
Medical Officer in General Hospital, Hisar on 06.05.2010, he
conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of Shakuntala
20 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -21-
whereafter he prepared her post-mortem report Ex.PL. They both
have given cause of death of Shakuntala and Anu as burn injuries
and their complications. Post-mortem reports proved by them
establish the cause of death as has been deposed by them. Above
described deposition of PW10, Dinesh Kumar Prajapat, establishes
that on intervening night of above mentioned dates, Shakuntala and
Anu were brought to General Hospital Hisar with a history of burn
injuries at village Dahima.
18. There is nothing in depositions of said medical
witnesses to doubt them about above-mentioned facts. It therefore
stands established that on intervening night of 05.05.2010 and
06.05.2010, Shakuntala and Anu were taken to General Hospital,
Hisar with 100% and 90% burn injuries respectively where they were
medico-legally examined and then were got admitted to Soni Burn
Hospital, Hisar where they died on above-mentioned dates because
of burn injuries and their complications.
19. Coming to the issue as to how Shakuntala and Anu
received burn injuries, we have already observed that version put-
forth by appellants in that regard is not borne out from evidence on
record. However, prosecution has examined PW6, ASI Radhey
Shyam to prove that on the said intervening night when Shakuntala
was opined as fit for recording her statement, he went to house of
PW3, Shri Tayyab Hussain, then learned JMIC, Hisar, with a request
to record statement of Shakuntala under Section 164 IPC. He also
21 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -22-
deposes that upon such application, PW3, Shri Tayyab Hussain came
to Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar and recorded her statement Ex.PF,
whereafter PW3, Shri Tayyab Hussain gave certificate Ex.PG signed
by him. PW3 Shri Tayyab Hussain has corroborated said ASI in that
regard. Their deposition also establishes that during the period
statement of Shakuntala was recorded, she remained fit to make
statement. May be that in last sentence of deposition of PW3 Shri
Tayyab Hussain, it has been mentioned that she was not in fit state of
mind. Wholesome perusal of record, however, makes it amply clear
that said sentence is in all probability incorrectly worded as at place
of “not” it should have been “in”. Otherwise also, contents of
certificate given by PW3, Shri Tayyab Hussain are contrary to said
sentence. His overall deposition shows that in the process of
recording statement of Shakuntala, she remained fit for giving
statement. Argument of learned counsel for appellants, in that
regard, therefore, has no substance. Deposition of said two
prosecution witnesses establishes that during said intervening night,
PW3, Shri Tayyab Hussain recorded statement Ex.PF of Shakuntala.
There is nothing in their depositions to doubt them about the process
adopted by them while recording statement Ex.PF of Shakuntala.
20. Here it deserves mention that PW4, Dharambir and PW7,
Ramesh Kumar have alleged that after her marriage with appellant
Inder Singh, Shakuntala was harassed for dowry articles and also for
motorcycle as well as cash. May be that there is nothing in that regard
22 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -23-
in statement Ex.PF of Shakuntala. At the same time, considering her
serious condition at the time of recording such statement, she could
not be supposed to disclose said fact/s in it especially when it was in
question answer form. PW4, Dharambir had stated to police in his
statement Ex.DA that appellants and their family members had put
them on fire in the said intervening night.
21. We have already observed that PW6, ASI Radhey Shyam
has categorically deposed that one carpet, a plastic tin of kerosene,
some burnt pieces of carpet and few clothes in burnt condition, were
lifted from spot and were converted to parcel/s which were taken
into police possession through recovery memo Ex.PK attested by
PW6, ASI Radhey Shyam. PW11, Dharambir has corroborated him
in that regard and has also deposed that one pair of slippers was also
recovered from the spot. There is nothing in their respective cross-
examinations to doubt them about said recovery from spot. Maybe
that they have not deposed about a recovery of a multicoloured sheet
over which some burnt clothes were pasted. At the same time,
recovery memo Ex.P-3, with the recovery of above-mentioned
articles, also shows recovery of said sheet from spot. PW11 SI
Dharambir is categoric that defence setup by appellants was not
found to be in existence during his investigation. As observed earlier,
articles of tea preparation and stove etc. were not recovered from
spot. In absence of recovery of tea preparation articles and stove
etc. and recovery of above-mentioned articles by PW11, SI
23 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -24-
Dharambir, we find that prosecution has connected articles
recovered in case in question with commission of crime in question
by appellants.
22. Deposition of PW3, Tayyab Hussain establishes that
during process of recording of statement Ex.PF, on 05.05.2010 at
04:50 AM, Shakuntala was in a fit state of mind. Deposition of PW1
Dr.Rajat Soni from Soni Burn Hospital, Hisar establishes that she
died in his hospital on 06.05.2010 because of her 100% burn injuries.
In statement Ex.PF, she has given facts constituting circumstances
under which she received such injuries. Said burn injuries turned out
to be cause of her death. Once it is so, said statement has to be
taken as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (for brevity, ‘1872 Act’) in the present case. Said section
is reproduced as under:-
“32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by
person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is
relevant.-Statements, written or verbal, of relevant
facts, made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be
found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence,
or whose atttendance cannot be procured, without an
amount of delay or expense which under circumstances
of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are
themselves relevant facts in the following cases :-
24 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -25-
(1)When it relates to cause of death. – When
the statement is made by a person as to the cause
of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of
the transaction which resulted in his death, in
cases in which the cause of that person’s death
comes into question.
Such statements are relevant where the
person who made them was or was not, at the
time when they were made, under expectation of
death, and whatever may be the nature of the
proceeding in which the cause of his death comes
into question.”
23. Thus, statement Ex.PF qualifies definition of a dying
declaration contained in said section. In respect of a dying
declaration, in its decision in Muthu Kutty and another Vs. State
by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 2005 (9) SCC 113, Hon’ble
the Supreme Court observed as under:
“14. This is a case where the basis of conviction of
appellant is dying declaration. The situation in which a
person is on deathbed is so solemn and serene when he is
dying that grave position in which he is placed, is
reason in law to accept veracity of his statement. It is for
25 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -26-this reason that the requirements of oath and cross-
examination are dispensed with.
Besides, should dying declaration be excluded it will
result in miscarriage of justice because the victim being
generally the only eyewitness in a serious crime, the
exclusion of statement would leave the court without a
scrap of evidence.
15. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great
weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no
power of cross- examination. Such a power is essential
for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be.
This is the reason the court also insists that the dying
declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full
confidence of the court in its correctness. The court has
to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not
as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product
of imagination. The court must be further satisfied that
the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear
opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once
the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and
voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without
any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an
absolute rule of law that dying declaration cannot form
26 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -27-the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The
rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of
prudence.”
24. View taken by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Muthu
Kutty’s report (supra) was reiterated by a three Judge Bench of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the report Panneerselvam Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 17 SCC 190. Further, in the report Atbir
Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court summed up law on the issue of a dying declaration
by observing as under:-
“16) The analysis of above decisions clearly shows that,
(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of
conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the
Court.
(ii) The Court should be satisfied that the deceased
was in a fit state of mind at the time of making
statement and that it was not the result of tutoring,
prompting or imagination.
(iii) Where the Court is satisfied that declaration is
true and voluntary, it can base its conviction
without any further corroboration.
(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of
law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole
27 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -28-
basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The
rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of
prudence.
(v) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should
not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from
infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and
could never make any statement cannot form the
basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not
contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not
to be rejected.
(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be
discarded.
(ix) When the eye-witness affirms that the deceased
was not in a fit and conscious state to make the
dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.
(x) If after careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied
that it is true and free from any effort to induce the
deceased to make a false statement and if it is
coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal
impediment to make it basis of conviction, even if
there is no corroboration.”
28 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -29-
25. Keeping in view above reproduced observations in
respect of a dying declaration, we now examine value of dying
declaration Ex.PF made by Shakuntala before PW3 Shri Tayyab
Hussain, then JMIC, Hisar. A perusal of said statement shows that
on intervening night of 05.05.2010 and 06.05.2010, Shakuntala
stated that she was sleeping with her daughter Anu and someone
poured kerosene on her at that time. She also says that all were
present in the house at that time. Her brother-in-law (dewar) was
there but her sister-in-law (jethani) was not there. She is specific that
her husband was also present there. In reply to a question as to who
put her and her daughter on fire, she stated that she does not know as
to who put her on fire as she was sleeping at that time. Her such
statement appears to be a true version of occurrence in question.
Since she was sleeping, she could not see or observe as to who had
put her and her daughter on fire. She therefore disclosed about
occurrence in question as undergone by her and her daughter.
26. In respect of value to be attached to a dying declaration,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in report Kamal Khudal Vs. State of
Assam, (2022) 20 SCC 654, observed as under:-
“24. “Truth sits upon the lips of a dying man.”
-Matthew Arnold
The whole idea of accepting a statement in the name
of dying declaration comes from a maxim “Nemo
29 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -30-
moriturus praesumitur mentire” which means that a
man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. It is
believed that when a man is at the point of death and
when every expectation of this world is gone, it hushes
away every motive of lie.”
27. Keeping in view said observations of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court and contents of statement Ex.PF, it comes out that
version contained in said statement is a true version of occurrence in
question and inspires confidence. No other evidence is required to
corroborate said version and it in itself is suffficient to prove facts
contained in it. If it is read in its true sense, it indicates that when
occurrence in question took place, both appellants were present in
their house. It specifically mentions that appellant Inder Singh and his
brother (Devar of Shakuntala) were present in the house when
kerosene was poured on Shakuntala and Anu and when they were put
on fire. It is therefore more than sufficient to establish presence of
appellants when occurrence in question took place. In view thereof,
omission to name them specifically as pouring kerosene on the
victims and putting them on fire has no significance. Such omission
has rather been filled up by PW4 by deposing that appellants put
them on fire. Contents of statement Ex. DA of said witness recorded
on 5th of May 2010 is also evident in that regard.
30 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -31-
28. As observed earlier, there is no dispute between parties
that Shakuntala was legally marrried wife of appellant Inder Singh
and real sister-in-law of appellant Amit whereas Anu aged about 8-9
months was daughter of appellant Inder Singh and niece of appellant
Amit. Prosecution has established that on intervening night of
05.05.2010 and 06.05.2010, they both were sleeping in house of
appellant Inder Singh wherein appellant Amit was also living.
Dying declaration Ex.PF establishes that there was no one present in
the house of appellant Inder Singh except his family members
including appellant Amit when occurrrence in question took place.
Statement Ex.PF also establishes that kerosene was poured on
Shakuntala and Anu when they both were sleeping. May be that
there is evidence that mother of appellant Inder Singh was also
sleeping with them. However, there is nothing on record to show that
mother of appellants also received burn injuries or that kerosene was
also poured on her. It therefore comes out that when kerosene was
poured on Shakuntala and Anu when they were sleeping, appellants
Inder Singh and Amit as well as their mother and their another
brother were present in the house. No one else is alleged to be present
in the house at that time. If that is so, appellant Inder Singh and
Amit only knew as to who poured kerosene and as to who put
Shakuntala and Anu on fire. Said facts, in facts and circumstances of
present case, have to be treated as in special and exclusive knowledge
of appellants. Thee is no eye-witness of occurrence in question.
31 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -32-
Shakuntala was categoric that kerosene was poured on both of them
when they were sleeping. In absence of anyone from outside present
in the house in question, appellants only knew as to who poured
kerosene on them and who put them on fire.
29. Above referred to defence version about occurrence in
question has not been believed. Rather, depositions of PW11and SI
Dharambir (Retd.) and PW6 SI Radhey Shyam are categoric that after
registration of FIR, PW11 SI Dharambir reached place of occurrence
where PW6 ASI Radhey Shyam was present and he handed-over
investigation to him. PW11 SI Dharambir is also categoric that after
reaching said place, he prepared a rough site-plan Ex.PN, lifted one
carpet and a plastic tin of kerosene, some burnt pieces of carpet and
few clothes in burnt condition etc from the spot which were sealed
and were taken into police possession through recovery memo
Ex.PK. PW6 ASI Radhey Shyam has also corroborated him in that
regard. There is nothing in their respective cross-examinations to
doubt them about their said depositions. FSL report Ex.PU
establishes that kerosene was detected on said carpet and clothes as
well as in the said can. PW2 Subhash Chand, Draftsman from DPO,
Police Lines, Hisar deposed that on 27.05.2010, he, with SI
Dharambir, visited place of occurrence and prepared scaled site-plan
Ex.PB with correct marginal notes. A perusal of scaled site-plan
Ex.PB shows that place of occurrence shown in it is courtyard of
house of appellant Inder Singh and not kitchen thereof. Said two
32 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -33-
prosecution witnesses have not been set-forth to have recovered
anything from kitchen of the said house. Whatever was recovered by
them was from courtyard where Shakuntala and Anu are stated to be
sleeping. Therefore, depositions of said witnesses establish that
occurrence in question took place as set-forth in dying declaration
Ex.PF and not in the manner alleged by appellants in their defence.
30. There is no other explanation or stand taken/set-forth by
appellants as to who poured kerosene on and as to how Shakuntala
and Anu were put on fire. Once it has been observed that they had a
special and exclusive knowledge of said circumstances, they were
required to put true facts before the Court. However, they have failed
to do so. In terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872
(for brevity “1872 Act”), putting said fact before the Court was
responsibility of appellants. Said section is reproduced as under:-
“106. Burden of proving fact especially within
knowledge.-When any fact is especially within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him.”
31. So far as interpretation of said section is concerned,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report Nagendra Sah Vs. State of
Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, observed as under:-
33 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -34-
“22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to
those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the facts from which a reasonable
inference can be drawn regarding the existence of
certain other facts which are within the special
knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to
offer proper explanation about the existence of said
other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate
inference.
23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if
the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in
discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section
106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an
additional link to the chain of circumstances….”
32. In the report Tulsiram Sahadu Suryawanshi Vs. State
of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373, Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in
respect of inferences to be drawn under Section 106 of the 1872 Act,
observed as under:-
“23. It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in
law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be
inferred from certain other proved facts. When
inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved
34 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -35-facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and
reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable
position. The above position is strengthened in view of
Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872
. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any
fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that
process, the courts shall have regard to the common
course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in
addition to the facts of the case. In these
circumstances, the principles embodied in Section 106
of the Evidence Act can also be utilised. We make it
clear that this section is not intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to
cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving
facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn
regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the
accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding
such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might
drive the court to draw a different inference. It is useful
to quote following observation in State of W.B. v. Mir
Mohammad Omar [(2000) 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 1516]: (SCC p. 393, para 38)
35 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -36-
“38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section
106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet
certain exceptional cases in which it would be
impossible for the prosecution to establish certain
facts which are particularly within the knowledge
of the accused. In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State
of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794]
the learned Judge has stated the legal principle
thus: (SCC Online SC para 9)
‘9. This lays down general rule that in a
criminal case the burden of proof is on the
prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not
intended to relieve it of that duty. On the
contrary, it is designed to meet certain
exceptional cases in which it would be
impossible, or at any rate
disproportionately difficult for the
prosecution to establish facts which are
“especially” within the knowledge of the
accused and which he could prove without
difficulty or inconvenience. The word
“especially” stresses that. It means facts that
are pre-eminently or exceptionally within
36 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -37-his knowledge.” (emphasis in original and
supplied)”
33. In the report Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, while considering a case of
homicidal death in the confines of house, Hon’ble the Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“14. If an offence takes place inside privacy of a house
and in such circumstances where the assailants have all
the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the
time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be
extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence
to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict
principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is
insisted upon by the courts. A Judge does not preside
over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man
is punished.
A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v.
Director of Public Prosecutions [1944 AC 315 :
(1944) 2 All ER 13 (HL)] – quoted with approval by
Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh
[(2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 135].) The law
37 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -38-
does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead
evidence of such character which is almost impossible
to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The
duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it
is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in
mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that
when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some
light on the content and scope of this provision and it
reads:
“(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway
without ticket. The burden of proving that he had
a ticket is on him.”
15. Where an offence like murder is committed in
secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the
case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but
the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to
establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is
required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The
burden would be of a comparatively lighter character.
38 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -39-
In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a
corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to
give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was
committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away
by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on
the supposed premise that the burden to establish its
case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no
duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.
* * *
22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the
murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in
leading evidence to show that shortly before the
commission of crime they were seen together or the
offence takes place in the dwelling home where the
husband also normally resided, it has been consistently
held that if the accused does not offer any explanation
how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation
which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance
which indicates that he is responsible for commission of
the crime. (Emphasis supplied)”
34. In respect of approach to be adopted while applying
Section 106 of the 1872 Act to a case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court,
39 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -40-in the report State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar,
2000 (8) SCC 382, observed as under:-
“31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not
be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no
process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of
presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it
impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the
traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the
prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic
coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the
major beneficiaries and the society would be the
casualty.
32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in
establishing the afore-narrated circumstances, the
court has to presume the existence of certain facts.
Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the
court to rely on in conditions such as this.
33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the
existence of one fact from the existence of some other
facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved.
Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a
40 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -41-fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain
other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a
fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a
process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as
the most probable position. The above principle has
gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114
is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the
court to presume the existence of any fact which it
thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court
shall have regard to the common course of natural
events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the
case.
34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court
that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they
took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what
happened to him until he was with them. If he was
found murdered within a short time after the
abduction the permitted reasoning process would
enable the Court to draw the presumption that the
accused have murdered him. Such inference can be
disrupted if the accused would tell the Court what else
happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their
custody. (Emphasis supplied)”
41 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -42-
35. Said observations, if are applied to case in question, it
comes out that appellants Inder Singh and Amit, at the time of and
on the date of occurrence in question, were in the house and no
other person except their family members, was present there. If it
was so, it was for appellants to explain as to who poured kerosene on
and who put Shakuntala and Anu on fire or as to how they received
burn injuries. However, there is no explanation forthcoming from
them. They have rather taken a stand which has been found false.
Once it is so, it comes out that it were appellants who poured
kerosene on them and put them on fire resulting in burn injuries to
them and their ultimate death on 05.05.2010 and 06.05.2010
respectively. Simply that appellants are stated to have intimated PW4
Dharambir after the occurrence is not at all a ground to belie dying
declaration Ex.PF and deposition of PW4 Dharambir. Even if it is
treated that appellants took them to hospital, they were bound to
explain as to who poured kerosene on them and as to who put them
on fire. May be that another brother of appellant Inder Singh was not
arrayed as an accused. At the same time, his non-arrayal can be of no
benefit to appellant Amit. By non-arrayal of another brother of
appellant Inder Singh as an accused despite there being dying
declaration Ex.PF implying his presence in the house when
occurrence in question took place as well as deposition of PW4
Dharambir made before the Court, damage has been done to
prosecution case. If appellant Amit is given benefit thereof, it will
42 of 43
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::
CRA-D-324-DB-2015 (O&M) -43-
cause double damage to it. A wrong cannot be used to repeat another
wrong.
36. We may also state that we have perused impugned
judgment minutely. After its perusal, we find that it is as per evidence
on record and law applicable to the case in question. Prosecution has
proved charges in question against both appellants beyond a shadow
of reasonable doubt. Judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2015 and
order of sentence dated 21.01.2015 passed by Learned Sessions
Court, Hisar are accordingly upheld.
37. We, therefore, find no substance in the present appeal
warranting interference under Section 386(b) Cr.P.C. It is therefore
dismissed. All pending interim or suspension of sentence
application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL) (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI)
JUDGE JUDGE
February 18, 2026
Sailesh/Sunil
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
43 of 43
::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2026 23:21:32 :::