Ajay Kumar JaIn Vs. State and anr.

[indian penal code (ipc), 1860 - sections 302, 498a, 304b,read with section 34; dowry prohibition act, 1961 - section 6, 3, 4]indian penal code (ipc), 1860 - sections 302, 498a, 304b,read with section 34; dowry prohibition act, 1961 - section 6, 3, 4 - punishment for murder -- p.w. 12 noticed the deceased with burn injuries and immediately rushed to the house of p.w. 3 who in turn rushed to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying there with burn injuries. the deceased was thereafter shifted to dr. jogu kistaiah' hospital in an auto rickshaw. the deceased was ultimately admitted to the mgm hospital at about 10:25a.m. a judicial magistrate was also deputed to the hospital for recording her dying declaration and he did so on the 20th april, 2000, exhibit p5 between 1:30 and 1:55 p.m. on the 21st april, 2000 and a case under section 302 was, accordingly registered against the three accused. the trial court relying on the aforesaid evidence held that the case against the accused had been proved beyond doubt and they were liable to conviction under sections 498a, 304b, 302 and 302 read with section 34 ipc and under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the dowry prohibition act. the trial court observing that the conduct of a1 in particular, had been reprehensible awarded him a sentence of death under section 302 of the ipc whereas accused nos. the primary evidence in this case is the dying declaration exhibit p5. this had been recorded by pw-15 j. ramamurthy additional magistrate first class on the 20th april, 2000. .....to see the judgment? (no)2. to be referred to the reporter or not? (no)3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (no) the petitioner was booked for the commission of the offences punishable under sections 420/406 of the indian penal code vide fir no. 121/2002 registered at mukherjee nagar police station on 14th march, 2002 at the instance of respondent no. 2-complainant m/s ashok leyland finance limited. the petitioner was booked in four other cases also of similar nature vide different firs registered at mukherjee nagar police station. the petitioner had got financed motor vehicles from the said complainant. the complainant company filed criminal complaints in the court of the concerned metropolitan magistrate which directed the police to register firs against the petitioner-accused herein. in compliance of that direction different firs included the fir of the present case came to be registered by the police. during the investigation stage, the complainant and the petitioner-accused arrived at some amicable settlement in respect of the dues of the complainant company under various hire-purchase agreements including the one in respect of which the present case was registered.after the settlement between the complainant and the petitioner five petitions were filed by the petitioner for quashing of the firs registered against him. all the five petitions at one stage were being taken up together and the complainant company had entered appearance in all the cases through its counsel who had confirmed on 27 th september, 2007 that there had been a settlement between the complainant company and the petitioner herein. then after hearing the submissions from both the sides all the cases were reserved for judgment. vide common judgment dated 22nd november, 2007 four petitions of the petitioner were allowed and it appears that due to some mistake the present case was left out and the file of the present case was sent to the registry along with other disposed.....