AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.C. Goyal, J.—It was argued that dying declaration of the deceased was first recorded by learned A.C.J.M. on 21.10.02 and her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.10.02 and both the statements are inconsistent. It was also argued that according to doctors Mr. M.M. Sharma and Mr. M.M. Rawat, she was not in a position to state and husband and father both are on bail. Learned counsel placed reliance on Kanchy Ramchander v. State of A.P. (1), wherein it was held that dying declaration if found to be true and free then it is sufficient for recording conviction and merely because the dying declaration has been recorded by a Judicial Magistrate is not by itself a proof of its truthfulness. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application and argued that the father-in-law and husband of the deceased were enlarged on bail only on the ground that it was mother-in-law who put her ablaze.
I have considered the said submissions. Without making any comments on merits, this application is dismissed.