IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Ajay Verma S/o Ganesh Verma - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Suhela - Respondent
CRA No. 1732 of 2023, CRA No. 1857 of 2023
Decided On : 15-07-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201/34 - Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence - Appellant Ajay Verma convicted for murder and destruction of evidence; Amanchand Routiya convicted for destruction of evidence - Dying declaration of deceased Ganga Yadav, recorded by Executive Magistrate, deemed reliable - Evidence of medical professionals confirmed fitness of deceased to give statement - Conviction upheld based on corroborative evidence and dying declaration. (Paras 2, 22, 36)
(B) Dying Declaration - Admissibility and reliability - Dying declaration can be sole basis for conviction if found credible - Certification of fitness by medical personnel is crucial but not solely determinative. (Paras 25, 32)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Ganga Yadav, was set ablaze by Ajay Verma following a quarrel, leading to her death. The prosecution relied on her dying declaration and corroborative evidence from witnesses. (Paras 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the dying declaration credible and supported by medical evidence, affirming the conviction of Ajay Verma for murder and Amanchand Routiya for evidence destruction. (Paras 36)
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in holding the death as homicidal and the reliability of the dying declaration. (Paras 23)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the credibility of the dying declaration and the necessity of corroborative evidence, affirming the trial court's findings based on the totality of evidence. (Paras 36)
Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. Since the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, this Court is disposing of both the appeals by a common judgment.
2. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), whereby the appellant - Ajay Verma has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I for 6 months and R.I. for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 1 month, whereas the appellant - Amanchand Routiya has been convicted under Sections 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 1 month.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Meghnath Yadav (PW-1) lodged a report in Police Station Suhela, alleging therein that Kumari Ganga Yadav (deceased), the daughter of her elder brother Buddha alias Umannath Yadav, aged 18 years, is having a love affair with accused Ajay Verma of the village. In the midnight of 16-17.08.2020, Ganga Yadav's brother Lalla Yadav came home and told that Ganga Yadav had come home running away from the fire. On being informed, he immediately went to her house and saw that she was in bad shape due to burnt in fire, then he went to call former Sarpanch Devcharan Soni and Khuman Dhruv for help and after calling, they took Ganga Yadav in 108 ambulance to Balodabazar, from where she was referred to Raipur. Ganga Yadav was not able to talk. After being taken to hospital, when she started talking, she told her family that on 16-17.08.2020 at 12:00 pm, accused Ajay Verma had talked to her on phone and called her to meet at the Yadav Samaj building. She had gone there to meet. Accused had a fight with Ganga Yadav and with intention to commit her murder, he poured kerosene on her, set her on fire, burnt her and ran away. Then she came running home saying save me, save me. She told about burning by Ajay Verma.
4. Based on the information of Meghnath Yadav (PW-1), the First Information Report under Section 307 IPC was registered by Roshan Singh Rajput (PW-18) and on 18.08.2020 visual map (Ex. P-02) of the incident site was prepared and during the course of investigation, Panchnama (Ex. P-03) was prepared in front of the witnesses and notice (Ex.P-14) was given to witnesses Mahesh Kumar Verma (PW-04) and Devcharan Dhruv (PW-07) to remain present during interrogation of accused Amanchand Routiya and Ajay Verma. On date 18.08.2020, memorandum statement (Ex.P-17) of accused Ajay Verma was recorded in the presence of witnesses. On being told by the accused that the mobile through which Ganga Yadav was called to meet was kept in his pant’s pocket, a mobile of Vivo Company was seized in front of the witnesses and a seizure sheet (Ex.P-19) was prepared. On date 18.08.2020, the memorandum statement (Ex.P-15) of accused Amanchand Routiya was recorded as stated by him. The black colored fullshirt used by accused Amanchand Routiya to clean the incident site was said to be hidden on top of Yadav Bhavan. When the accused took out from the roof of Yadav Bhavan in front of the witnesses, a one liter water bottle which smelled of kerosene and some quantity of kerosene was left, a matchbox, a pair of red slippers, a black colored fullshirt were seized in the presence of witnesses and a seizure sheet (Ex.P-16) was prepared.
5. Half-burned clothes worn by Ganga Yadav at the time of the incident, which had the smell of kerosene, were collected from five places in the ground near the spot of the incident and seized in front of witnesses, vide seizure sheet (Ex.P-18) and on 09.09.2020, on presented by Taleshwar Yadav, a m
Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545
Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Koli Chunilal Savji v. Stateof Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra
Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695
Purshottam Chopra and another v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
The court upheld the convictions based on the reliability of the dying declaration and corroborative evidence, affirming the principles governing the admissibility of such declarations.
A dying declaration must be trustworthy and corroborated; significant discrepancies in the statement led to acquittal due to reasonable doubt not established by prosecution.
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if deemed credible and made in a fit state of mind, as established in this case.
The court affirmed that a dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind.
A dying declaration can only serve as a basis for conviction if it is proven to be reliable and made in a fit mental state; otherwise, it cannot sustain a conviction.
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations as a sole basis for conviction, as established by various Supreme Court cases.
A dying declaration is only valid if the victim was in a fit mental state to give it, which wasn't established; thus, conviction based solely on it is unsafe.
A dying declaration must be supported by evidence of the declarant's mental fitness; absence of such certification undermines its reliability as a basis for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.