Babita Dagar vs State Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 08 April, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 07 July, 2026
+ CRL.A. 181/2004
BABITA DAGAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr.
Shailendra Singh, Mr. K. R.
Dogra, Mr. Ishaan Jain, Mr.
Surya Pratap Singh, Mr.
Manender Singh, Mr. Ashish
Chandla, Mr. Uday Yadav,
Advs. and appellant in person.
versus
STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for
State with Mr. Manvendra
Yadav, Mr. Atiq Ur Rehman,
Advs. and Insp. O. P. Vishnoi,
PS Najafgarh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment
of conviction dated 09.02.2004 and the order on sentence dated
12.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New
Delhi [“ Trial Court ”], in Sessions Case No. 03/2002, arising out of
FIR No. 186/2002 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 1 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

Penal Code, 1860 [“ IPC ”] at Police Station Najafgarh.
Brief Facts
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.04.2002, an
information was received at Police Station Najafgarh that one woman
had been set on fire in Gopal Nagar. The said information was
recorded vide DD No. 12A. SI Amrit Lal along with Ct. Satish [PW-4]
proceeded to House No. RZ 102-103, Phase-II, Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, Delhi, where it was discovered that the injured, namely,
Bimla Devi, had already been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital for
treatment. The doctor prepared the medico-legal case report [“ MLC” ]
of the victim. Investigating Officer [ “IO” ], namely, SI Amrit Lal,
reached the hospital and gave an application [Ex. PW-15/C] to the
CMO, Safdarjung Hospital for permission to record the statement of
the victim.
3. The doctor, upon being satisfied with the medical condition of
the victim, declared her ‘fit for statement’ on the same day, that is, on
th
04 April, 2002 at 1:30 PM [Ex. PW-15/D]. IO SI Amrit Lal recorded
the statement of the victim Bimla Devi [Ex. PW-16/C], wherein, she
stated that she was married to one Anoop Singh about 11 years ago
and has a daughter. Around 7-8 years ago, her husband Anoop Singh
went missing and so the family got her married to Anoop’s younger
brother, namely, Mr. Surinder Singh. She further stated that in the
morning at about 10:30 AM, one Babita Dagar [appellant] R/o
Jharoda Kalan village had come to her house along with two boys
aged around 18-19 years. She knew Babita Dagar [appellant] since 3-4
years and Babita used to visit her house, but she did not know the
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 2 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

other two boys. It was stated that Babita wanted to marry her husband
Surinder Singh. She further stated that she served them tea and talked
with them for about half an hour. Babita told her about her
engagement. Around 11.00 AM, suddenly, Babita and the two boys
got up, threw chilli powder in her eyes, wrapped a chunni around her
neck and attempted to strangulate her. Thereafter, she was set on fire.
The assailants then fled away from the spot. At the time of the
incident, her husband Surinder Singh had gone for duty and her
daughter was at school.
4. After recording the statement of the victim Bimla Devi, IO SI
Amrit Pal returned at the spot. Crime team was called and
photographs were taken. MLC of the victim was collected. On the
basis of the statement of victim Bimla Devi, FIR No. 186/2002 was
registered under Sections 307/34 IPC at Police Station Najafgarh.
During investigation, the site plan of the place of occurrence [Ex.
PW16/D] was prepared, photographs were taken, pieces of burnt
clothes and scattered chilli powder were lifted and sealed in different
pullandas, which were duly sealed with the seal of “ALS”.
th
5. On the next day, that is, on 05 April, 2002, Ms. Indu Shekhar,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate [“ SDM” ], Najafgarh (PW-11), filed an
application [Ex. PW-11/A] before CMO, Safdarjung Hospital for
confirming as to whether the victim Bimla Devi was fit for statement.
Dr. Ajay Kumar made his endorsement Ex. PW-15/B that the “patient
was fit for statement”. Thereafter, the SDM recorded the statement of
victim Bimla Devi [Ex. PW-11/B], wherein, she stated that she had
th
been married for 11 years and that on 10 April, 2002, at about 10.30
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 3 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

am, while she was sweeping the floor, there was no one present at the
house, as her daughter had gone to school and her husband had gone
for his job. She further stated that on hearing a knock on the door, she
opened the door. Babita and two boys entered inside the house. She
stated that she knew Babita, as few days back, she had come to her
house for taking water and had introduced herself as Babita. She
further stated that all three of them forcibly threw chilli powder in her
eyes and when she tried to run away, they caught her and put a chunni
around her neck in order to strangulate her. She was then set ablaze.
On hearing her screams, her neighbour came there and called other
neighbours, who helped in extinguishing the fire and then took her to
the hospital. She further stated that she does not know the reason for
the incident.
th
6. On 06 April, 2002, information was received that injured
Bimla Devi [“ deceased ”] had succumbed to her injuries. Such
information was reduced into writing as DD No. 19-A. Consequently,
Section 307 IPC was replaced by Section 302 IPC. The post-mortem
examination of the deceased was conducted. Accused Babita Dagar
th
[“ appellant ”] was arrested on 07 April, 2002. She gave disclosure
statement [Ex. PW 7/A]. Pursuant to such disclosure, accused Babita
led the police to the house of the deceased from where she got
recovered one steel gas stove, one gas lighter, one gas regulator, one
gas cylinder and one rubber gas pipe [Ex. PW 14/B]. Subsequently,
accused Surinder Singh [husband of deceased] was also arrested on
th
08 April, 2002.
7. The doctor prepared post-mortem report [Ex. PW 17/A]. The
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 4 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

cause of death was opined as shock caused by antemortem thermal
burn injuries.
8. The Appellant Babita Dagar disclosed that on the fateful day,
she was accompanied by her cousins Johnny and Vinnu. Non-bailable
warrants were issued against both of them but they could not be traced
by the police. Proceedings under Section 82/83 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“ Cr.P.C. ”] were initiated against them.
9. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on
th
25 May, 2002 under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC against the appellant
Babita Dagar and Surinder Singh. The names of Johnny and Vinnu
were kept in Column No. 2 of the charge sheet.
10. The learned Trial Court after hearing arguments, framed
charges under Sections 302/120-B IPC against the appellant Babita
Dagar and accused Surinder Singh. They pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 17
witnesses. The Appellant Babita Dagar and accused Surinder Singh
were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Appellant Babita Dagar
did not lead any evidence in her defence. However, accused Surinder
Singh produced two witnesses in his defence.
12. After conclusion of trial and appreciation of the evidence on
record, the learned Trial Court vide Judgment dated 09.02.2002
convicted the appellant Babita Dagar for offence under Sections
302/34 IPC, but acquitted the accused Surinder Singh holding that the
prosecution could not prove its case against him and his presence at
the spot at the time of occurrence could not be established. Further,
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 5 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

the learned Trial Court vide Order on Sentence dated 12.02.2002,
sentenced appellant Babita Dagar to undergo Rigorous imprisonment
for life for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/-,
in default to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for five months.
13. Feeling aggrieved, the accused Babita Dagar preferred the
present appeal. The sentence of the appellant was suspended by this
th
Court vide order dated 04 December, 2006.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
14. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and stated that the
learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper
perspective and convicted the appellant merely on conjectures and
surmises. It was contended that the prosecution case suffered from
serious infirmities and that the conviction is founded upon
contradictory multiple dying declarations made by the deceased Bimla
Devi before different persons.
15. It was submitted that the prosecution relied upon an oral dying
declaration allegedly made to PW-2 Sukhvir Singh and PW-13
Devender Kumar, another oral dying declaration allegedly made
before PW-6 HC Ishwar Singh while the deceased was being taken to
the hospital, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on
04.04.2002, the statement recorded by the SDM on 05.04.2002, as
well as the history recorded by the attending doctor in the MLC.
According to learned Senior Counsel, these declarations are not
consistent with each other and suffer from material variations, thereby
rendering them unreliable.
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 6 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

16. It was contended that the statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer depicts a narrative as per which the appellant
Babita Dagar was known to the deceased for several years, had visited
her house on earlier occasions, was served tea by the deceased,
remained in the house for about half an hour and informed the
deceased about her engagement before the alleged assault took place.
However, in the statement recorded by the SDM on the following day,
the deceased stated that the appellant and two boys entered the house
forcibly and that she was unaware of the reason behind the incident.
Learned Senior counsel submitted that these two versions are
fundamentally inconsistent with each other and cannot be reconciled.
17. It was further argued that in the statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer, the deceased specifically attributed motive to
the appellant by alleging that the appellant desired to marry Surinder
Singh. In contrast, in the dying declaration recorded by the SDM,
which is sought to be treated as the most reliable version by the
prosecution, there is no allegation regarding any love affair, intention
to marry, or dispute involving Surinder Singh. Rather, the deceased
expressly stated that she did not know why the incident had occurred.
According to the learned Senior counsel, such omission goes to the
root of the prosecution case and destroys the alleged motive.
18. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
prosecution has attempted to improve its case through the testimony of
PW-2 and PW-13, who are admittedly the real brothers of the
deceased and therefore interested witnesses. It was argued that both
witnesses introduced facts relating to the alleged relationship between
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 7 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

the appellant and Surinder Singh and attributed conspiracy to them.
These allegations, according to the appellant, constitute material
improvements over the dying declaration recorded by the SDM and
therefore cannot be safely relied upon.
19. It was next contended that the evidence of PW-3 Shakuntala
Devi, a neighbour who reached the spot immediately after hearing the
screams of the deceased, does not support the prosecution version.
The said witness did not depose that the deceased disclosed the
identity of her assailants to her. Similarly, PW-1 Alok, son of shop
owner having PCO telephone, also failed to support the prosecution
case inasmuch as he denied having identified the appellant on
08.04.2002. It was submitted that the independent witnesses examined
by the prosecution have turned hostile and have not corroborated the
allegations against the appellant.
20. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the prosecution
failed to examine any witness who had actually seen the appellant
entering or leaving the house of the deceased on the date of the
incident. There is thus, no direct evidence connecting the appellant
with the occurrence. The conviction rests solely on the dying
declarations, which, according to the appellant, are themselves
contradictory and unreliable. It was also pointed out that the Death
Summary records that after chilli powder was thrown in the
deceased’s eyes, she was immobilised by tying her hands and legs
with ropes. But, this is the first time the mention of ropes occurred and
furthermore, no ropes were recovered at the place of incident, thereby
weakening the prosecution case.
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 8 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

21. It was submitted that the prosecution has also failed to establish
any credible motive. The allegation that the appellant intended to
marry Surinder Singh is based entirely upon statements allegedly
made by the deceased and her relatives. No independent evidence has
been produced to show the existence of any such relationship or any
dispute between the deceased and the appellant.
22. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that although the
prosecution alleged that two other assailants, namely Johnny and
Vinnu, had accompanied the appellant, neither of them could be
arrested nor brought to trial. It was argued that the prosecution version
regarding the participation of unknown associates remained unverified
and casts serious doubt on the overall reliability of the investigation. It
was also argued that since the co-accused Surinder was acquitted by
the learned Trial Court, the charge under Section 34 IPC does not
survive. Furthermore, it was argued that there were procedural lapses,
inasmuch as, there was delay of two days in recording the statements
of PW-6 and PW-13 and the absence of name of PW-6 in the MLC as
the person who brought the victim to the hospital.
23. It was contended that the photographs do not display any signs
of violence or struggle and that the recoveries effected at the instance
of the appellant are wholly inconsequential. The articles recovered,
namely the gas stove, gas regulator, gas cylinder, gas lighter and gas
pipe, were ordinary household articles available at the house of the
deceased and do not constitute incriminating evidence linking the
appellant with the commission of the offence. Furthermore, the chilli
powder was not recovered from the kitchen, but rather from the open
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 9 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

courtyard outside the kitchen.
24. It was also pointed out that PW-15 Dr. Reetesh Purwar in his
cross-examination stated that he does not remember if any injury was
caused by chilli powder and if there would have been presence of
chilli, he would have mentioned that in MLC. But, the MLC is silent
regarding presence of chilli in the eyes of victim, thereby casting
serious doubt on prosecution version.
25. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that where multiple
dying declarations exist, the Court is required to examine whether they
are wholly consistent and inspire confidence. In the present case, the
declarations contain significant omissions, additions and
improvements. The deceased gave different accounts to different
persons and the prosecution has failed to explain these discrepancies.
The multiple dying declarations and their contents are mutually
destructive to each other. It was, therefore, argued that it would be
unsafe to sustain a conviction for the offence of murder solely on the
basis of such inconsistent dying declarations, in absence of other
reliable evidence.
26. It was accordingly prayed that the prosecution having failed to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order on sentence deserve to be set aside and the
appellant be acquitted of all charges.
27. In support of his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel placed
reliance on Chapter-13 A of Delhi High Court Rules titled as ‘Dying
Declarations’ and also upon the following judgments:
i. Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1999) 7 SCC
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 10 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

695;
ii. Uka Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 I AD (Crl.) SC 825;
iii. Kamla vs. State of Punjab, 1993 CrLJ 68;
iv. Ram Nath Madhoprasad & Ors. vs. State of M. P., 1953 CrLJ
1772;
v. Laxmi vs. Om Prakash & Ors., 2001 SCC (Cri) 993;
vi. Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2001 (2) Crimes 242 (SC);
vii. Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773;
viii. Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 3817;
ix. Suresh vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2025 SC
1561;
x. Abhishek Sharma vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023
SC 5271.
Submissions on behalf of the State
28. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor [APP] for the
State averred that the learned Trial Court has given detailed and well-
reasoned findings and convicted the appellant after a fair trial upon
proper appreciation of evidence. The learned APP supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution case stands
established through a series of consistent and voluntary dying
declarations made by the deceased before different persons, each of
whom had no occasion to fabricate or distort the version given by the
victim.
29. Learned APP submitted that immediately after the occurrence,
the deceased, while being taken to the hospital, disclosed to PW-6 HC
Ishwar Singh that the appellant, along with two associates, had entered
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 11 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

her house, thrown chilli powder into her eyes and set her on fire. She
also stated that appellant had illicit relations with her husband
Surinder. This statement was made at the earliest point of time and
therefore carries a strong presumption of truthfulness.
30. It was further submitted that the attending doctor, PW-15 Dr.
Reetesh Purwar, recorded the history narrated by the deceased herself
while she was undergoing treatment. The deceased specifically named
the appellant and described the manner in which she was assaulted. It
was further submitted that the statement made to a doctor in the course
of medical treatment carries high evidentiary value and there is no
reason to disbelieve the same.
31. The learned APP argued that the statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer on 04.04.2002 and the dying declaration
recorded by the SDM on 05.04.2002 are substantially consistent with
each other on all the material particulars. In both declarations, the
deceased stated that the appellant came to her house accompanied by
two boys, chilli powder was thrown into her eyes, a chunni was used
to strangulate her and she was thereafter set on fire. He submits that in
both the declarations, these core allegations remained unchanged
throughout.
32. It was submitted that the variations highlighted by the defence
relate only to collateral matters such as, whether tea or snacks were
served to the visitors, whether the appellant informed the deceased
about her engagement, or whether the deceased elaborated upon the
background relationship involving Surinder Singh. Such variations,
according to the State, are natural and expected when a victim narrates
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 12 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

the same incident before different persons at different times.
33. The learned APP contended that the law does not require
multiple dying declarations to be identical in every word or detail. The
true test is whether the declarations are consistent regarding the
genesis of the occurrence and the identity of the assailant. In the
present case, every declaration unequivocally names the appellant as
the principal offender and consistently narrates the acts of throwing
chilli powder, attempting strangulation by chunni and setting the
deceased on fire.
34. It was further argued that the dying declaration recorded by the
SDM is highly reliable. Before recording the statement, the SDM
obtained confirmation from the doctor that the deceased was fit to
make a statement. The SDM was an independent public officer having
no connection either with the deceased or with the accused. He further
submits that there is also no allegation of tutoring, coercion or
inducement.
35. The learned APP also relied upon the testimony of PW-2
Sukhvir Singh and PW-13 Devender Kumar (brothers of the victim),
who stated that the deceased disclosed the incident to them while she
was admitted in the hospital. Hence, both the witnesses corroborated
the essential contents of the dying declarations and their evidence
remained unshaken during cross-examination.
36. It was submitted that the medical evidence also lends complete
assurance to the prosecution case. The post-mortem report establishes
that the death occurred due to shock resulting from ante-mortem
thermal burn injuries. The medical findings are wholly compatible
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 13 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

with the version consistently given by the deceased.
37. The learned APP argued that the acquittal of Surinder Singh by
the learned Trial Court does not in any manner weaken the case
against the appellant. The learned Trial Court merely held that the
prosecution had failed to establish the presence of Surinder Singh at
the place of occurrence. However, the evidence against the appellant
stood on a completely different footing as she was specifically named
in every dying declaration.
38. It was further submitted that there exists no reason whatsoever
for the deceased to falsely implicate the appellant while sparing the
actual offender. The dying declarations were made when the deceased
was battling for her life and there is nothing on record to suggest
anything that could have prompted a false accusation.
39. The learned APP thus contended that the dying declarations
made by the deceased are truthful, voluntary, consistent and fully
corroborated by surrounding circumstances and medical evidence. It
was accordingly prayed that the appeal being devoid of merit deserves
to be dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the
learned Trial Court be affirmed.
40. The learned APP in support of his arguments relied upon the
following judgments,:
i. State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai, (2022) 14 SCC
299 ;
ii. Jemaben vs. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2299 ;
iii. Sudru vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2019) 8 SCC 333
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 14 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

Reasoning and Analysis
41. We have heard the arguments advanced by counsels of both
parties and have perused the material on record.
42. It is well settled that, while exercising appellate jurisdiction in a
criminal appeal against conviction, this Court is required to re-
appreciate the evidence to ascertain whether the findings recorded by
the Trial Court suffer from perversity, material illegality, or result in
miscarriage of justice.
43. The principal challenge raised by the appellant in the present
case is regarding the reliability of the various dying declarations made
by deceased Bimla Devi, before different persons at different times.
The conviction of the appellant is substantially founded upon those
declarations and, therefore, the Court is required to scrutinize the same
with due care and caution.
44. Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes relevant a
statement made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of
the circumstances resulting in his death. It is well settled that once a
dying declaration is found to be voluntary, truthful and inspires
confidence, the same can form the sole basis of conviction without
requiring independent corroboration. At the same time, where multiple
dying declarations are relied upon, the Court is required to examine
whether they are mutually consistent on material particulars and
whether they inspire confidence. The Supreme Court in Atbir Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 9 SCC 1, has laid down certain factors
to be taken into consideration while upholding the conviction on the
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 15 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

basis of dying declaration. The relevant paragraph of the judgement is
reproduced under:-
“22. The analysis of the 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 the
statement and that it was not the result of tutoring,
prompting or imagination.
(iii) Where the court is satisfied that the
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
basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The
rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of
prudence.
(v) Where the 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 eyewitness 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 the basis of conviction, even
if there is no corroboration.”
45. Keeping the above principles in mind, we now proceed to
examine the various dying declarations made by the deceased Bimla
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 16 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

Devi.
46. In the present case, the prosecution relies upon multiple sets of
dying declarations made by the deceased. The earliest version is the
statement made by the deceased Bimla before PW-6 HC Ishwar Singh
while she was being shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. The second is the
history recorded by PW-15 Dr. Reetesh Purwar in the MLC. The third
is the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer SI Amrit Pal on
04.04.2002. The fourth dying declaration is in the form of statement
recorded by PW-11 (SDM) on 05.04.2002. The fifth is oral dying
declarations made before PW-2 Sukhvir Singh and PW-13 Devender
Kumar, that is, brothers of the deceased Bimla.
47. Admittedly, these declarations were made before different
persons and at different points of time. PW-6 HC Ishwar Singh was
the PCR official who reached the spot immediately upon receipt of
information. He found the deceased in a burnt condition and removed
her to Safdarjung Hospital. His testimony assumes significance
because it records the spontaneous account furnished by the deceased
during transit to the hospital. PW-6 deposed that the deceased
informed him that Babita, accompanied by two boys, had come to her
house, thrown chilli powder in her eyes and thereafter set her on fire
by pushing her on a lit stove.
48. In cross examination, PW-6 stated that two more ladies, one the
neighbour and the other, the Jethani of victim Bimla Devi
accompanied him when Bimla was being removed to the hospital. The
challenge to the testimony of PW-6 is that as per the MLC of Bimla
Devi [Ex. PW-15/A], the victim was brought to the hospital by her
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 17 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

neighbour Shakuntala. There is no mention that PW-6 or the Jethani
of Bimla had brought her to the hospital. In cross examination, PW-6
denied that the husband of Bimla took her to the hospital and got her
admitted. If that is the stand of the accused, even the name of Surinder
Singh also does not find mention in the MLC as the person who got
the victim admitted in the hospital. Therefore, merely because the
names of PW-6 and Jethani of Bimla are not mentioned in the MLC,
is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW-6. In our view, there is no
reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-6, who is a neutral witness
and had no prior connection either with the deceased or with the
appellant. His evidence with regard to what was stated by the victim to
him on way to the hospital, would therefore carry a great probative
value.
49. PW-15 Dr. Reetesh Purwar was the attending doctor who
medically examined the deceased upon her admission to Safdarjung
Hospital on 04.04.2002. The MLC prepared by him records that the
victim suffered 45% burn injury including chest, abdomen, right side
arms, buttock, thigh and hand. He also recorded the presence of
ligature mark on the left side of the victim’s neck. PW-15 stated that
the history in the MLC was narrated by the deceased herself. He stated
that the patient/injured Bimla Devi informed him that one lady namely
Babita had come to her residence alongwith two unknown males.
After having snacks, Babita threw chilli powder into her eyes, a
chunni was put around her neck and she was thereafter set on fire.
PW-15 further stated that the deceased also referred to the relationship
between the appellant and her husband Surinder Singh. In cross
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 18 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

examination, PW-15 stated that sedatives were given to the patient
after her statement. He denied that the patient was not in a position to
speak. He further denied that the alleged history was given by
Shakuntala and not by the patient. Significantly, this statement/history
was recorded in the course of medical examination and even before
the arrival of family members and therefore cannot be regarded as
tutored version.
50. Now, coming to the statement recorded by the then IO SI Amrit
Lal. Unfortunately, SI Amrit Lal could not be examined as a witness
as he died in a road accident. The statement of Bimla, recorded by SI
Amrit Lal, was shown to the second IO, that is, Inspector M.S.
Shekhawat [PW-16]. He identified the handwriting of SI Amrit Lal.
Not only this, he identified the handwriting and signatures of SI Amrit
Lal on the rukka [Ex. PW-5/A] and application [Ex. PW-15/C] filed
by SI Amrit Lal before CMO, Safdarjung Hospital, seeking
permission to record the statement of Bimla Devi. Thus, we take note
that prior permission was sought from the CMO, Safdarjung Hospital
to record the statement of the victim Bimla Devi. The attending doctor
certified that the patient was fit for making a statement and only
thereafter was the statement recorded. In such statement, the deceased
gave a detailed account of the occurrence and specifically named the
appellant as the principal offender. She stated that the appellant came
to her house along with two boys, remained there for some time, chilli
powder was thrown into her eyes, a chunni was wrapped around her
neck and she was set on fire. The statement further contains the
alleged motive attributed by the deceased, namely that the appellant
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 19 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

desired to marry her husband Surinder Singh.
51. The most significant dying declaration is the one recorded by
PW-11 SDM Ms. Indu Shekhar. The record reveals that before
recording the statement, the SDM sought a fresh opinion regarding the
fitness of the patient. The attending doctor certified at 10:15 AM on
05.04.2002 that the deceased was fit to make a statement. The SDM
thereafter recorded her statement. As per the said statement, the
deceased was alone in the house when the appellant and two boys
entered her residence forcefully, threw chilli powder in her eyes,
attempted to strangulate her by a chunni and thereafter set her on fire
and then ran away. PW-11 was an Executive Magistrate acting in
discharge of official duties. Nothing has been brought on record to
suggest any tutoring, coercion or influence. The statement of the
victim Bimla appears natural, coherent and voluntary.
52. Generally, the dying declarations ought to be recorded in the
form of questions-answers. However, the statement [Ex. PW-11/B],
recorded by the SDM, is not in question-answer form. The fact that
dying declaration is not in the question-answer form, does not impact
either its admissibility or its probative value as held in Ram Bihari
Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517.
53. The evidence of PW-2 Sukhvir Singh and PW-13 Devender
Kumar, who are brothers of the deceased, also assumes relevance.
Both witnesses deposed that when they met the deceased in the
hospital she informed them that Babita and her two associates had
thrown chilli powder into her eyes, attempted to strangulate her and
thereafter burnt her. Their testimony further indicates that disputes had
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 20 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

arisen because of the relationship between the appellant and Surinder
Singh. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Pulicherla
Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006)
11 SCC 444 while dealing with reliability of interested witnesses who
are relatives observed that the evidence of a witness cannot be
discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested
or close relative to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be
trustworthy and credible.
54. The defence has argued that the declarations are inconsistent
because some of them mention that tea or snacks were served to the
appellant whereas others do not. It has also been argued that the
motive concerning the relationship between the appellant and Surinder
Singh finds mention in some declarations but not in others.
55. We are of the opinion that, the aforesaid variations do not affect
the substratum of the prosecution case. A distinction must always be
drawn between contradictions touching the core of the prosecution
case and variations relating to unimportant details. Courts cannot
expect photographic reproduction of an event from a victim who is
narrating a traumatic incident before different persons at different
points of time.
56. It is not the requirement of law that multiple dying declarations
must reproduce each fact in identical language or contain a verbatim
account of every circumstance. The test is whether the declarations are
consistent on material particulars. In Jagbir Singh Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2019) 8 SCC 779 , the Supreme Court had an occasion to
consider the law relating to the dying declaration and the problem of
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 21 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

multiple dying declarations in detail. It was held that merely because
there are two/multiple dying declarations, all the dying declarations
are not to be rejected. It was observed that when there are multiple
dying declarations the case must be decided on the facts of each case
and the court will not be relieved of its duty to carefully examine the
entirety of the material on record as also the circumstances
surrounding the making of the different dying declarations. The
relevant para reads as under:-
“ Our conclusion on multiple dying declarations
32. We would think that on a conspectus of the law
as laid down by this Court, when there are more
than one dying declaration, and in the earlier
dying declaration, the accused is not sought to be
roped in but in the later dying declaration, a
somersault is made by the deceased, the case must
be decided on the facts of each case. The court will
not be relieved of its duty to carefully examine the
entirety of materials as also the circumstances
surrounding the making of the different dying
declarations. If the court finds that the
incriminatory dying declaration brings out the
truthful position particularly in conjunction with
the capacity of the deceased to make such
declaration, the voluntariness with which it was
made which involves, no doubt, ruling out tutoring
and prompting and also the other evidence which
support the contents of the incriminatory dying
declaration, it can be acted upon. Equally, the
circumstances which render the earlier dying
declaration, worthy or unworthy of acceptance,
can be considered. ”
57. Examined in that light, the multiple declarations in the present
case seem to be consistent. The essential details of the occurrence
remain unchanged throughout all the declarations. The identity of the
appellant is consistently disclosed. The presence of two associates is
consistently mentioned. The throwing of chilli powder, the attempted
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 22 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

strangulation by means of a chunni and the act of setting the deceased
on fire are repeated in every material version. These are the
circumstances which constitute the gravamen of the offence.
58. The variations highlighted by the defence relate mainly to
insignificant details. In one statement, the deceased stated that she
served tea to the appellant and her associates. In another, she
mentioned that they remained in the house for some time. In one
version, she referred to the appellant's desire to marry Surinder Singh,
whereas in another she stated that she did not know why the incident
had occurred. These aspects do not affect the basic prosecution
narrative. At the highest, they represent elaborations or minor
omissions and not contradictions touching the core of the occurrence.
59. The challenge raised regarding the mental and physical
condition of the deceased also does not persuade this Court. The
record demonstrates that before both the statement recorded by the
Investigating Officer and the declaration recorded by the SDM, the
concerned doctors certified that the deceased was fit to make a
statement. No material has been brought on record to show that the
deceased was unconscious, disoriented or incapable of understanding
the questions put to her.
60. Equally important is the fact that the history recorded in the
MLC was furnished by the deceased herself. Such statement was made
at the earliest available opportunity while she was undergoing
treatment. The spontaneity attached to the statement recorded by the
doctor furnishes an additional guarantee of reliability.
61. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to contend that
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 23 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

PW-2 Sukhver Singh and PW-13 Devinder Kumar are interested
witnesses being brothers of the deceased. The submission, though
attractive at first, is not persuasive. The prosecution case does not rest
exclusively upon their testimony. Their evidence merely corroborates
the declarations already made before the PCR official, the doctor, the
SDM and the Investigating Officer.
62. The Supreme Court in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR
1958 SC 22 is a watershed judgment on the law on evidentiary value
of dying declarations. In this case, the deceased therein had given
three successive dying declarations within a span of two hours, which
were, to a certain degree contradictory to each other. However, one of
the aspects that remained common and was narrated by the deceased
in all three dying declarations was that he was attacked by two
persons, namely, Khushal Rao and Tukaram with swords and spears.
The Supreme Court, relying on the common thread running through
all dying declarations, which was consistent with medical evidence
revealing punctured and incised wounds on various parts of the body,
held that the said declarations could be relied upon in convicting the
accused who had been named in all three dying declarations.
63. Co-relating the said facts to the facts of the present case, we
find that the dying declarations receive assurance from the
surrounding circumstances. PW-4 Ct. Satish deposed that upon
reaching the spot, burnt clothes and chilli powder were found lying on
the floor. These articles were seized and taken into possession. The
recovery of chilli powder from the place of occurrence is a
circumstance which directly corroborates the narrative consistently
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 24 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

appearing in every declaration made by the deceased.
64. The medical evidence also furnishes corroboration. PW-17 Dr.
Alexander F. Khakha conducted the post-mortem examination and
opined that death occurred due to shock consequent upon ante-mortem
thermal burn injuries. The medical findings are wholly compatible
with the prosecution version that the deceased had been intentionally
set on fire.
65. Therefore, we find that there runs a common thread in the
statements of the deceased, being that she was attacked by the
appellant. Further, we also find that the statements made by the
deceased in her dying declaration are consistent with medical evidence
which reveals that there were 45% burn injuries on her body and
ligature mark on left side of her neck. The presence of burn injuries on
certain parts of body and ligature mark portray that a person other than
the deceased tried to strangulate her and set her on fire. We therefore
find the dying declarations to be reliable.
66. Much emphasis was laid by the appellant on the fact that PW-1
Alok and PW-3 Shakuntala Devi did not support the prosecution.
However, their turning hostile does not materially dent the prosecution
case. Neither of these witnesses was an eyewitness to the actual
occurrence. The prosecution case cannot fail merely because some
witnesses did not support it if reliable evidence otherwise exists on
record. As noted previously, the dying declaration was recorded by the
SDM in victim’s words and read it to her, after which, she affixed her
thumb mark on it. In the present case, the prosecution case is founded
primarily upon the dying declarations of the deceased, which stand
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 25 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.
67. The appellant has emphasised that the alleged associates,
namely Johnny and Vinnu, could not be apprehended. In our opinion,
the inability of the investigating agency to arrest the absconding
associates does not dilute the evidence available against the appellant.
Similarly, the acquittal of co-accused Surinder Singh also does not
advance the case of the appellant. The Trial Court acquitted Surinder
Singh because the prosecution failed to establish his presence at the
spot and failed to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the evidence against the appellant stands on an entirely
different footing. She was specifically named by the deceased at every
stage and her role remained consistent throughout the investigation
and trial. It is pertinent to note that at the instance of Surinder Singh, a
letter [Ex. PW 14/G] written by the appellant stating her desire to
marry Surinder was recovered. On an application moved by the IO
PW 16 for obtaining handwriting of the appellant [Ex. PW 16/G], she
refused to give her specimen handwriting and categorically stated that
she is the author of the letter [Ex. PW 14/G]. This lends credence to
the assertion made by deceased Bimla in her various dying
declarations that the appellant wanted to marry her husband and
thereby constitutes a motive for the offence committed.
68. We are also unable to accept the suggestion that the deceased
falsely implicated the appellant. No material has been brought on
record to establish any prior enmity of such magnitude as would impel
a dying woman to falsely name the appellant out of spite and allowing
the real offenders to escape. On the contrary, the consistent attribution
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 26 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

of a specific role to the appellant across multiple declarations inspires
confidence regarding their truthfulness.
69. In cross examination, PW-15 Dr. Reetesh Purwar, who had
examined the victim and prepared her MLC, stated that he does not
remember whether there was any injury caused by chilli. He clarified
that if there would have been any chilli, definitely, he would have
mentioned it in the MLC. Similarly, PW-17 Dr. Alexander F. Khakha,
who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, stated in cross
examination that there was no injury in the eye of the victim at the
time of post-mortem examination. According to him, no traces of
chilli powder were found in the eyes of the deceased. Based upon such
opinion of the doctor, the learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued
that the statements by the deceased in multiple dying declarations that
chilli powder was thrown in her eyes, is not supported by the medical
evidence, and therefore, such dying declarations cannot be relied upon
to convict the accused. Lack of medical evidence as to the presence of
chilli powder in the eyes of the victim, cannot be taken to mean that
chilli powder was not thrown in her eyes. Her dying declaration
unequivocally state that accused and her two associates threw chilli
powder in her eyes before setting her on fire and there is no rule
mandating the corroboration of the dying declaration through the
medical or other evidence when the dying declaration is not otherwise
suspicious.
70. In Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC 283, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the medical expert’s opinion is not
conclusive so as to existence of any fact. The opinion of the medical
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 27 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

officer is to assist the court as he is not a witness of the fact and the
evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory
character and not binding on the witness of fact.
71. Upon cumulative consideration of the entire evidence, we are
satisfied that the dying declarations made by the deceased are
voluntary, truthful, consistent and reliable. The minor variations relied
upon by the defence do not detract from the consistency of the core
prosecution story. The evidence of PW-6, PW-11 and PW-15, provide
substantial assurance regarding the authenticity of the declarations.
The same stand further corroborated by the testimony of PW-2 and
PW-13, the recovery of chilli powder and burnt articles from the spot,
and the medical evidence on record. The submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellant do not create a reasonable doubt sufficient to
dislodge the prosecution case.
72. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution
has succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it was the
appellant Babita Dagar who, acting in furtherance of common
intention with her associates, assaulted the deceased by throwing chilli
powder into her eyes, attempted to strangulate her by chunni and
thereafter set her on fire, resulting in injuries which ultimately caused
her death.
73. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon
proper appreciation of the evidence on record and do not suffer from
any perversity or illegality warranting interference by us.
74. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant Babita Dagar
under Sections 302/34 IPC merits affirmation.
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 28 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39

75. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
76. Appellant is directed to surrender before Superintendent Jail
within a period of two weeks from the date of the judgment for
serving the remaining sentence, and in the event of failure to surrender
in terms of this judgment, appropriate steps be taken by the Jail
Superintendent and by the learned Trial Court for ensuring the arrest
of the appellant for serving the remaining sentence.
77. A copy of this judgment be sent to Superintendent Jail as also
the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
RM
JULY 07, 2026/ AK/
CRL.A. 181/2004 Page 29 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:07.07.2026
16:39