Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sanjay S. Agrawal, JJ.
Onkar Sahu, S/o Itwari Ram Sahu - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, District Durg (C.G.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.629 of 2012
Decided On : 20-09-2022
CrPC - Criminal Appeal - Section 302 of IPC - [Homicidal Death, Accidental Death, Tutored Witness, Statement Relevance under Section 32 of Evidence Act, Reliability of Testimony, Acquittal]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for causing the death of his wife by setting her on fire. The prosecution alleged that the appellant poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire, resulting in her death. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed innocence, stating that he had tried to save his wife's life and incurred significant expenses for her treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death of the deceased was not homicidal but accidental, as she sustained burn injuries while cooking. The court also held that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant caused the burn injuries to the deceased. The court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.
Issues: The main issues were whether the death of the deceased was homicidal, the reliability of the witnesses' testimonies, and the relevance of the deceased's statements under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statements of the doctors who treated the deceased, which indicated that she sustained burn injuries while cooking. The court also assessed the reliability of the witnesses' testimonies and found inconsistencies, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was falsely implicated.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC and ordered to be released from detention.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
2. It is admitted position on record that marriage of the appellant was solemnized with deceased Kamini Sahu in the year 2003 and they were blessed with two daughters Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) & Ku. Khushi. On 26-3-2011, between 8 and 9 p.m., deceased Kamini Sahu suffered superficial to deep burn injuries and at that time, Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) & Ku. Khushi both were present and the appellant had taken his wife/deceased to Durg hospital and got her admitted over there and on the next day, she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Raipur, but she was hospitalized at Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai on 27-3-2011 and she was got discharged from Sector-9 Hospital on 25-4-2011 and thereafter, she died on 25-5-2011 at 6.30 p.m. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-3-2011, the appellant and the deceased along with their two daughters Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) & Ku. Khushi were staying in Village Selud, Distt. Durg and at that point of time, the appellant was serving as Home Guard. It is the case of the prosecution that ten days prior to the date of offence i.e. 26-3-2011, Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) – brother of the deceased, was also staying with the deceased at Village Selud and on 26-3-2011, in the morning, he had gone to Village Pahanda and on that day, father of the deceased Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1) asked Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) to call his daughter Kamini Sahu to have a conversation with her, then on being called, they heard the cry of Kamini Sahu ‘bachao bachao’ and then immediately, Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) all reached to the house of the appellant at Village Selud where the smell of burn was coming and kerosene oil was found scattered, and both daughters of the appellant & the deceased were present over there and servant Durga Thakur (PW-4) was also present, and on being asked, it was informed by Durga Thakur (PW-4) that the appellant had taken deceased Kamini Sahu to Durg hospital. It is also the case of the prosecution that Ku. Benika Sahu (PW-2) and another daughter of the appellant & the deceased – Ku. Khushi informed Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-1), Suryakant Sahu (PW-5) & Teekamchand Sahu (PW-7) that the appellant assaulted their mother by wooden stick and poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire, thereafter, all reached to the District Hospital, Durg where the deceased was already admitted. Deceased Kamini Sahu was examined in Outdoor Patient Department, District Hospital, Durg, vide Ex.P-12 which has been proved by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW9) and in Ex.P-13, which is Indoor Patient Admission Ticket, it was clearly mentioned that the deceased was conscious and it is a case of 50-55% burn injuries and complaint was “flame burn while cooking”. Information was given by Govt. Distt. Hospital, Durg to the police on 26-3-2011 at 10.15 p.m. vide Ex.P-14 which has been proved by Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9). But later-on, on 27-3-2011, looking to the condition of the deceased that there was superficial to deep burn injuries on chest, abdomen, both limbs, right arm, face & neck, Dr. V.S. Baghel (PW-9) referred her to Medical College Hospital, Raipur / higher centre, however, she was not taken to the Medical College Hospital by the appellant and she was admitted in Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai on 27-3-2011. Initial Assessment Sheet (Ex.P-16) proved by Dr. Parag Gupta (PW-11) shows that in the column of Chief Complaints, history given by the patient / deceased herself was, she sustained burns while cooking on wooden chulha when she
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the nature of death (homicidal or accidental) and the relevance of witness testimonies in criminal cases.
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, affirming that the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite claims of accidental death.
A dying declaration, when certified by a medical professional as being made in a fit state of mind, is highly reliable. When corroborated by consistent eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, it j....
The court ruled that the appellant committed culpable homicide, not murder, establishing that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, albeit strong, did not demonstrate premeditation.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it meets the criteria of truthfulness, voluntariness, and absence of suspicion, as established by the Indian Evidence Act and relevan....
The judgment establishes the importance of dying declarations and the application of appropriate sections of the IPC based on the circumstances and intention of the accused.
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
