Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Binod Mandal, son of Sitaram Mandal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.373 of 2003
Decided On : 26-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence Act - Section 32(1) [now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam s.26] - Dying declaration - Rule of prudence requires doctor's certification of fitness but not absolute - Ultimate test is truthfulness and voluntariness - Statement brief, consistent, motive disclosed, no role attributed to others - Corroborated by burn pattern (upper body), prior discord, prompt recording. (Paras 19-25)
(C) Evidence Act - Section 105 - Alibi - Burden on accused to prove - Mere denial and self-serving statement under CrPC s.313 insufficient without evidence. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Injured wife gave fardbeyan at dispensary that husband sprinkled kerosene on her and set fire due to his plan for second marriage; she had returned from parental home eight days prior; no other family involved; died next day from shock due to 90% burns mainly on upper body. Trial court convicted under s.302 IPC sentencing to life RI; appeal challenging dying declaration reliability and alibi.
Findings of Court:
Dying declaration true and voluntary; no infirmity warranting rejection; guilt proved beyond doubt; appeal dismissed; appellant directed to surrender within two months.
Issues: Whether dying declaration sans medical fitness certificate reliable despite 90% burns; sufficiency for conviction without eyewitnesses or motive proof; validity of alibi.
Ratio Decidendi: Dying declaration can form sole basis of conviction if voluntary, recorded promptly in presence of doctor even without fitness endorsement, where no suspicion of tutoring; circumstances like burn nature, prior discord and failed alibi corroborate.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant :Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate, Mr. Amandeep, Advocate, Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Tushar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against conviction for wife's murder by burning. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. dying declaration unreliable without fitness certificate; alibi claimed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. dying declaration voluntary; circumstances indicate guilt. (Para 7) |
| 4. evidence review shows partial corroboration despite hostile witnesses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. trial court correctly relied on genuine dying declaration. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. dying declaration valid sans explicit fitness certification. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. fardbeyan as substantive dying declaration under evidence act. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 8. appeal dismissed; appellant must surrender. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the above named sole appellant for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.01.2003 and 20.01.2003 respectively for the offence under section 302 of IPC passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in S.C. No.212 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is based on fardbayan of Lakhia Devi, wife of Binod Mandal (present appellant) recorded by A.S.I., Nokha Lal Yadav of Palajori P.S. on 28.05.2000 at 16:00 hours at State Dispensary, Palajori stating inter alia that on 28.05.2000 in the morning, the informant’s husband, Binod Mandal sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her on ablaze, when she started crying, her husband fled away from the house. The reason behind the occurrence is that her husband was saying that he will solemnize second marriage with another girl. Therefore, the informant went to her parental home. It is further alleged that about 8 days ago, she had returned from her parental home to her matrimonial home along with her husband, Binod Mandal. It is further alleged that at the time of occurrence, except her husband, none of the family members were present. The informant (since deceased) has further stated that except her husband no other family members are responsible for this occurrence. The fardbayan (Ext.2) was also signed by the father-in-law of the injured victim, namely, Sita Ram Mandal (P.W.6).
4. On the basis of above fardbayan of the injured victim, Palajori P.S. Case No.57 of 2000 dated 28.05.2000 was registered for the offences under sections 324/307 of IPC. In course of treatment, Lakhia Devi (informant) died at Sadar Hospital, Dumka, hence section 302 of was added in this case. After conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer of the case has submitted charge-sheet against above named appellant for the offence under section 302 of . The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.C. No.212 of 2001 was registered. The accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submission on behalf of the appellant
5. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the legality of conviction of the appellant has pointed out following points:- (i) The appellant is innocent and the deceased had sustained extensive burn injuries, which was due to accidental fire occurred in absence of the appellant from his house. (ii) The appellant is an ice-cream seller and at the time of occurrence, he had gone to sell ice-cream and when he returned at the night then he came to know about the burn injuries sustained by his wife. In the next day, his wife died in course of treatment. (iii) Learned counsel further submits that altogether 7 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution but none of the witnesses are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It
