IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Manish Kumar Nigam, JJ.
Rameshwar Lal Chauhan - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 6920 of 2017
Decided On : 31-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A, 304B, 323, 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173, 313, 207 - Evidence Act - Section 32 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 3, 4 - Offence of Murder - Criminal Appeal - Dowry death - Held, Court hold evidence point of dying declaration does not inspire confidence relied no reliable evidence to satisfy judicial mind deponent was conscious mentally - Case statement of deceased itself becomes doubtful material on record - Court absolutely not satisfied truthfulness of voluntary dying declaration fitness of mind of deceased - Court prosecution failed to substantiate charges levelled against appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing consistent cogent and reliable evidence - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Kumar Nigam, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court no.7, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No.153 of 2015 whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred as ‘trial court’) has convicted Rameshwar Lal Chauhan (appellant-accused) s/o late Mishri Lal Chauhan for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment and has ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In the default of the payment of fine, he had to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. By the same judgment dated 30.11.2016, learned trial Court acquitted the other co-accused namely Smt. Bela Devi, wife of late Mishri Lal Chauhan, Bhuvneshwar Lal Chauhan slo late Mishri Lal Chauhan, Parmeshwar Lal Chauhan, s/o late Mishri Lal Chauhan under Section 498A, 304B, 323, 302 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the informant namely Sarju Chauhan s/o late Pyare Lal Chauhan submitted a written complaint Ex.Ka-1 on which the First Information Report Ex.Ka-11 was registered in Case Crime No.487 of 2014 under Section 498A, 304B, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Cantt, Gorakhpur against Smt. Bela Devi, widow of late Mishri Lal Chauhan (mother-in-law), Bhuvneshwar Lal Chauhan, Kamleshwar Lal Chauhan, Parmeshwar Lal Chauhan, all sons of late Mishri Lal Chauhan (brother-in-laws), Rameshwar Lal Chauhan s/o late Mishri Lal Chauhan (husband) and Anuradha d/o late Mishri Lal Chauhan (Nanad).
3. As per the First Information Report, the informant stated that his daughter Pooja (deceased) was married to Rameshwar Lal Chauhan (appellant-accused) on 26.6.2012. It was further stated that in the marriage, the informant had given Rs.1,00,000/- cash, T.V., Fridge, Washing Machine, Almirah, Bed and other household goods but soon after the marriage, his daughter-Pooja was harassed by her mother-in-law, Bela Devi, husband, Rameshwar Lal Chauhan, brothers-in-law (devar), Bhuvneshwar Lal Chauhan, Parmeshwar Lal Chauhan and Sister-in-law (Nanad), Anuradha for dowry. It was further stated that all the persons used to beat his daughter and whenever informant visited daughter’s place, he consoled his daughter that with the passage of time, everything would be alright but there was no improvement in the behaviour of Saas, Devar, Nanad and husband of the deceased-Pooja. On 31.5.2014, aforesaid persons had beaten his daughter for Rs.50,000/- and for a ring (angoothi). Upon being informed, the informant visited the house of his daughter and brought her back to his house. On 2.6.2014, when the informant came back with his daughter after her B.A. IIIrd year examination, his son-in-law Rameshwar Lal Chauhan took the daughter back to his house . On 11.6.2014, deceased-Pooja worked hard for making arrangements for the marriage of her sister-in-law, Anuradha and in the morning of 12.6.2014 at about 6-6:30 a.m., Pooja came from the place where the marriage was being solemnized in connection with some work. Her Devars Bhuvneshwar Lal Chauhan and Kamleshwar Lal Chauhan also came to the house and locked his daughter in a room and poured kerosine oil and set her to fire. On being informed by persons of the area, informant came to his daughter’s house and saw that her daughter was burnt. With the help of other people, informant admitted his daughter to the District hospital, from where she was referred to the medical College, where during the course of treatment she died at about 8-8:30 p.m on 12.6.2014.
4. The dying declaration Ex.Ka-8 of the deceased-Smt. Pooja, was recorded on 12.6.2014 at about 10:20 a.m at B.R.D Medical College, Gorakhpur by Naib Tehsildar posted at Tehsil Sadar, Gorakhpur.
5. After the First Information Report was lodged, the Police investigated the crime and after collecting the evidence, a charge-
Khushal Rao Vs. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1958 SC 22
State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav
Ramavati Devi v. State of Bihar
K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor
Rasheed Beg v. State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurthi Laxmipati Naidu
Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar
Nanahau Ram and another v. State of M.P.
Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur
Jagbir Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2019) 8 SCC 779
Kanchy Komuramma Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 31
Puran Chand Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 6 SCC 566
Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 5 SCC 777
State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Misra and another (1996) 10 SCC 360
Balu Sonba Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & others Vs. State of U.P.
Sarvesh Narain Shukla Vs. Daroga Singh and others
Subbu Singh Vs. State (2009) 6 SCC 462
C. Muniappan Vs. State of T.N. (2010) 9 SCC 567
Himansh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2011 (2) SCC 36
Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam
Asraf Ali Vs. State of Assam reported in (2008) 16 SCC 328
Andugula Shankaraiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2012 CrLJ 189
Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793
A conviction cannot solely rely on a dying declaration unless it is proven to be voluntary and reliable, with the accused given a chance to explain incriminating evidence.
Inconsistent dying declarations cannot suffice for conviction without corroborating evidence, especially when procedural guidelines for a fair trial are not met.
The failure to put the contents of the dying declarations to the accused under Section 313 CrPC resulted in prejudice to the accused, and the dying declarations could not be used against him in the a....
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.
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.
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.
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.