Allahabad High Court Acquits Man Awarded Death Penalty For Allegedly Killing 2 Relatives By Setting Them Ablaze

“We find in the facts of the case that the court below has not subjected the testimony of witnesses to careful scrutiny and has accepted the prosecution case on its basis. The law with regard to the evaluation of the dying declaration has also not been applied correctly in the facts of the present case,” the bench Of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed as it gave a benefit of doubt to the accused.

The case in brief

Essentially, the allegations against the accused were that on June 17, 2003, he came to the house of the deceased persons (mother and brother-in-law) to enquire about the whereabouts of his wife and daughter.

When the family members informed him that two of them had not come to the house, he started abusing them and at about 1.00 in the night, he poured petrol and set ablaze the deceased persons. Both persons were taken for treatment to the hospital where the mother-in-law of the accused died on the spot and his brother-in-law died during his treatment.

The Trial Court, on the basis of evidence led in the matter, came to the conclusion the motive behind committing the act was the desire of the accused to keep his daughter with himself as his mistress, and since this was objected to by her in-laws and the wife, the accused ultimately killed his mother-in-law and brother-in-law.

Importantly, the Court heavily relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased/Deepchand (brother-in-law of the accused).

The Court had opined that since the wife of the accused had got her daughter married on the date of the incident and apparently the accused was enraged by such an act, he committed the “ghastly” act resulting in the brutal death of two persons.

The trial court, therefore, found the charges under Sections 302, 504 IPC to have been proved against the accused-appellant and he was awarded a sentence of the death penalty.

High Court’s observations

Having analysed the entire case of the prosecution, the evidence produced by it and the arguments advanced by the counsels, the High Court, at the outset, observed that the testimony of witnesses was limited to the statement of fact about the accused coming to the house of the deceased and making inquiries about his wife and daughter and nothing was said about what the contents or exchange of words between the witnesses and accused, which enraged him to the extend that he later on, killed two of his in-laws.

The Court also found substance in the arguments advanced by the Amicus curiae Rajarshi Gupta that the motive (that the accused wished to keep his daughter with himself) was introduced later on, to portray a horrific picture of the accused as being a person who wanted to keep his own daughter and thereby to suggest that he could go to any extent to commit a brutal and barbaric.

Further, the Court also did not find much truthfulness in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 regarding the facts narrated by them. Similarly, testimonies of PW3 and PW4 were also discarded by the Court.

Regarding the evidence of the dying declaration of Deepchand/deceased, the Court found several material contradictions in the same (as recorded by the Magistrate) viz-a-viz the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer.

“The dying declaration made to the Magistrate, therefore, does not appear to us to be entirely reliable inasmuch as the factual assertion made therein with regard to Deep Chand having gone to the room of his mother to see TV and other facts being contradicted by the evidence on record. Deep Chand has otherwise feigned ignorance about the reason for which the accused had poured petrol and set him and his mother ablaze,” the Court said.

Further, finding that the law with regard to the evaluation of the dying declaration had not been applied correctly in the facts of the present case, the Court granted him the benefit of the doubt and allowed his appeal paving the way for his release noting that he has already undergone 10 years of imprisonment.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: From jail, A.K.Dwivedi(Ami.Curiae), Rajrshi Gupta A.C.

Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt.Advocate

Case Title: Jugal vs. State Of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283 [CAPITAL CASES No. - 3809 of 2015 with Reference No.10 of 2015]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 283

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment