PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 07,2020

PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA Appellant
VERSUS
State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NINGAPPA DHANAPPA NAIKWADI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK TUKARAM KALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-225] [REFERRED TO]
YOUSUF BADSHAH SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
DANIYAL SHIVAJI ALHAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESH VS. STATE BY CHELLOOR RURAL POLICE REP. BY S.P.P, [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
DHAVALKUMAR ARUN DOMBE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
KHETABHAI LADHUBHAI BHARWAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-3-237] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK S/O DATTARAO BHOGANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-109] [REFERRED TO]
NARVATBHAI KALUBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1773] [REFERRED TO]
ILLYASAHAMAD VS. STATE OF KARANTAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-980] [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2020-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-2-142] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DINESH MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.)By way of these appeals, the appellants have called in question the judgment and order dated 23.05.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1999 whereby, the High Court of Delhi has affirmed the judgment and order dated 30.01.1999 in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi; and has upheld the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC').
(2.)In a brief outline of the material aspects, it could be noticed that in the present case, the appellants are accused of causing death of one Sher Singh by putting him on fire. There had been no eye-witness to the incident but the prosecution has relied upon two statements said to have been made by the deceased after the incident: one when he was admitted to the hospital with 100% burns and another when he was under treatment, respectively to a doctor and to a police officer. The Trial Court as also the High Court have accepted these statements as being his dying declarations wherein the appellants were named as the assailants. Therefore, the appellants stand convicted essentially on the basis of the dying declarations of the victim. The reliability of such dying declarations has been assailed in these appeals apart from other contentions concerning the surrounding factors. The relevant facts and background aspects of the matter could be noticed, keeping in view of the points arising for determination in these appeals.
The relevant facts and background

(3.)Put in brief, the prosecution case had been that on 18.12.1997, at about 3.00-3.15 p.m., hearing the screams of a person and noticing smoke coming from plot no. 17 situated near Goverdhan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, a lot of people gathered at the spot and saw that a man was ablaze with his entire body covered with fire; and the people so gathered made efforts to put out the flames by throwing water over the said person. The information as regards this incident was received in the Police Control Room ('PCR') through a phone call from some unknown person at 3.28 p.m. by Ct. Anju (PW-7), who made an entry bearing No. 467 in Form I (Ex. PW-7/A) and passed on the information to the nearest Police Station. The concerned officers from PCR reached the spot and shifted the injured person to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment, where Dr. Sushma (PW-8) prepared the MLC (Ex. PW-8/A). While preparing the MLC, the injured person identified himself as Sher Singh and gave his address; and narrated the incident that had led to his current condition while accusing one Purshottam and another Suresh (telwala), both residents of A-block, Uttam Nagar, Delhi as his assailants [These persons Purshottam and Suresh are the appellants herein].
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.