Back
2012(1) C.G.L.J. 568 (DB)
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ.
SHEKH RAM YADAV …Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. (NOW C.G.) …Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1999
Decided on: 20-10-2011
Dying Declaration - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Section 32 of the Evidence Act - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the admissibility of oral dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and the scrutiny required for its acceptance. The judgment referenced the case of Heikrujam Chaoba Singh Vs. State of Manipur to highlight the importance of the truthfulness and reliability of the dying declaration. The court emphasized the need for the deceased to be in a fit state of mind and the absence of influence or rancour in making the statement. The court also examined the evidence of oral dying declaration presented by various witnesses and scrutinized its reliability based on the circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for setting the deceased on fire, leading to her death. The prosecution relied on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before several witnesses. The defense argued that the case was based on an unreasonable and unreliable oral dying declaration, creating doubt on the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of oral dying declaration presented by the prosecution was unreliable and did not meet the required scrutiny for acceptance. The court highlighted discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and the absence of corroboration, leading to the appellant's acquittal due to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the reliability of the oral dying declaration as the basis for the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strict scrutiny and reliability of oral dying declarations, as well as the absence of influence or rancour in the statement. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroboration and the overall truthfulness of the dying declaration in reaching a conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302 IPC were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him.
As per Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, J. :-
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-6-1997 passed by Session Judge, Raipur in Session Trial No.392/1996. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Shekh Ram Yadav has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :
There was an illicit relationship between the appellant and deceased Fuleshwaribai, due to which, husband of the deceased had deserted her. The deceased, thereafter, was residing along with her children in a house outside the village. The appellant used to visit her there. He had started quarreling and committing Marpeet with her prior to the fateful day, i.e., 18-5-1996. In the night of the fateful day, Tejram (PW-16), son of the deceased, had gone out of the house on his duty, her elder daughter had slept in the house of neighbourer Sadhana (PW-4), her younger daughter Suruchi (PW-14) had gone to Village Bade Munari and she (the deceased) was all alone at the house. At about 1 O'clock in that night, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire with match-stick. Thereafter, the appellant started fleeing. Screaming, the deceased came out of the house behind the appellant. Purshottam (PW-1), one Pyarelal and Pramila (PW-5), residing in neighbourhood, saw the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence. Purshottam (PW-l) tried to catch bicycle of the appellant, but the appellant succeeded in fleeing. The deceased told the neighbourers and villagers that the appellant set her on fire and fled. She was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Raipur, where she died on 235-1996. Intimation regarding death of the deceased was sent by Medical College Hospital, Raipur to Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur vide Ex.P-4. Merg Intimation (Ex.P-3) was recorded in Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur on 235-1996 and thereafter regular Merg Intimation (Ex.P-6) was recorded in Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur on 9-6-1996. First Information Report (Ex.P-17) was recorded by Jogendra Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir Hasaud (PW-25) on 12-6-1996. The investigating officer reached Medical College Hospital, Raipur, gave notice (Ex.P-7) to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P-8) on the body of the deceased. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to Medical College Hospital, Raipur. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. Arvind Nerulwar (PW-23), who gave his report Ex.P-15, in which, he opined that the cause of death was syncope due to burn.
In further investigation, spot-map (Ex.P-1) was prepared by Patwari Devraj Diwan (PW-11). Another spot-map (Ex.P-2) was also prepared by Jogendra Singh, Station House Officer (PW-25). Pink saree, red shoe, chimney, bidi, pieces of bangles and container of kerosene were seized vide Ex.P-10. The appellant was sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. Kripashankar Rai (PW -22). He gave his report Ex.P-13.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Session Judge, Raipur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt. The prosecution examined Purshottam (PW-1), Manharanlal (PW-2), Sunita alias Tijiya (PW-3), Sadhana Verma (PW-4), Pramila (PW-5), Dulari (PW-6), Gautam (PW-7), Raruha (PW-8), Ramashankar Mishra (PW-9), Pawan Kumar (PW-10), Devraj Diwan (PW-11), Vijay Laxmi (PW-12), Kamal Narayan (PW-13), Suruchi (PW-14), Kisan Lal Verma (PW- 5), Tejram (PW-16), Suklal (PW-17), Khorbahara (PW-18), Dr. P.LYadu (PW-19), Khedau Singh Chouhan (PW-20), Bharatlal Kurmi (PW-21), Dr. Kripashankar Rai (PW-22), Dr. Arvind Nerulwar (PW-23), Ramkrishna Shukla (PW-24) and Jogendra Singh (PW-25). The appellant examined Ramdheen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
