HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.
Ramesh Chakradhari, S/o. Jayram Chakradhari – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police of Police Station- Kumhari – Respondent
CRA No. 2320 of 2023
Decided On : 26-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction for murder conviction background. (Para 1) |
Judgment :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.10.2023 passed by the the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 70/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
2 The appellant/convict was charged under Section 302 of the IPC for murdering his wife Lalita Chakradhari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire with a matchstick on 09.01.2022 at 19.00 hours in his own house situated at Ward No. 9, Shivnagar, Kumhari, under Police Station Kumhari, District Durg.
3 The admitted facts in this case is that the deceased is the wife of the appellant. Pooja Chakradhari (PW-1) is the daughter and Roshan Chakradhari (PW-3) is the son of the deceased and the appellant. Appellant is the brother of Rajesh Chakradhari (PW-2). The appellant is the nephew of Sukalya Bai (PW-4) and Harish Chakradhari (PW-6).
4 The case of the prosecution, in brief is that two to three months prior to the incident dated 09.01.2022, the appellant had been abusing and assaulting his wife, i.e. the deceased, due to suspicions about her character, claiming she was having an affair with one Laxminarayan Chakradhari. On 09.01.2022, when the deceased returned home at approximately 7:00 p.m. after buying vegetables from the weekly market in Kumhari, the appellant said that she had gone to market with Laxminarayan and and began assaulting her. At that time, the complainant, Pooja Chakradhari, (PW-1) and her younger brother, Roshan Chakradhari (PW-3), were present at home. Displeased by the abuse, the complainant, Pooja Chakradhari, left the house and went to her grandmother's house next door. At that moment, a loud screaming sound was heard. Pooja Chakradhari (PW-1) saw her mother emerge from the house in a burning condition upon which the neighbours doused the flames. The deceased was then brought to the Community Health Centre, Kumhari, in an Ambulance. The deceased was talking at that time when Pooja Chakradhari asked her mother how it happened, to which the deceased replied that her father i.e. the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick to kill her. On 09.01.2022 itself, the statement of the deceased (Exhibit P/20) was recorded by the police. On 10.01.2022, Pooja Chakradhari (PW-1) lodged a Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P/1) at DKS Hospital, Raipur. Based on the Dehati Nalishi, an offence under Section 307 of the IPC was registered and investigation was initiated in the case.
5 During the investigation, on 10.01.2022, upon the presentation of the complainant Pooja Chakradhari (PW-1), the deceased’s plain clothes and the burnt clothes were seized as per Exhibit P/4. On the same date, a site map (Exhibit P/2) of the incident was prepared, plain soil, soil smeared with kerosene, match box, and a plastic container with kerosene, were seized from the scene, as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/13). On 10.01.2022 itself, upon the appellant’s instance, the clothes worn at the time of the incident were seized, as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/12). On 10.01.2022, the deceased’s dying declaration (Exhibit P/17) was recorded by the Executive Magistrate at DKS Hospital, in which the deceased stated that her husband, i.e. the appellant had assaulted her, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire. On the same date, the scene was inspected and a Panchnama (Exhibit P10) was prepared and the appellant was arrested after evidence of incrimination was found against him
6 During treatment, on 16.01.2022, following the deceased’s death, a merg intimation (Exhibit P/18
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Devinder alias Kala Ram and others v. State of Haryana
Purshottam Chopra and another v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Jayamma and another v. State of Karnataka
Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of A.P.
A dying declaration must be certified by a medical professional regarding the declarant's mental fitness; failure to do so undermines its reliability as evidence in a murder conviction.
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.
The dying declaration of the deceased, supported by medical evidence and circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient to establish guilt under Section 302 of IPC.
A dying declaration must be trustworthy and corroborated; significant discrepancies in the statement led to acquittal due to reasonable doubt not established by prosecution.
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 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.
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.
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.