The distinction between culpable homicide and murder was clarified, with reliance on detailed evidentiary standards regarding dying declarations and the implications of provocation in determining appropriate charges.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304, 498-A, 304-B, and 34 - Conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder set aside; replaced with conviction under Section 304 IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reflecting the sudden provocation of the act. The court distinguishes between the roles of the accused, finding insufficient evidence against one co-accused regarding intent and action taken - Acquitted of charges against him. (Paras 1, 14, 26, 28)

(B) Dying Declaration - The reliability and fitness of the declarant's mind when the statement was made are crucial. The court held the dying declaration sufficient for conviction, as the circumstances and medical assessments indicated consciousness and competency to give statements. It emphasized the presumption of truthfulness in dying declarations given at the point of death. (Paras 11.1, 12, 26)

Facts of the case:
The deceased was married to Hridaya Rai, was subjected to dowry harassment, and was ultimately burned by her husband following a quarrel regarding the usage of a mobile phone. A dying declaration clearly implicated Hridaya Rai, while the evidence against Satrajit Rai was insufficient. (Paras 3, 10, 26)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on the reliable dying declaration that attributed the act of burning to Hridaya Rai, and found no overt role for Satrajit Rai, who was merely present during the incident. His conviction was set aside. (Paras 14, 28)

Issues: Whether the evidence and circumstances supported natural culpability for murder or less severe culpable homicide without intent. Whether the co-accused was improperly convicted based on limited involvement as presented in the dying declaration. (Paras 3, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the legal principles governing dying declarations, highlighting the necessity of assessing the declarant's state of mind. The distinction and legal implications of culpable homicide were further articulated, leaning towards a conviction under Section 304 IPC for actions constituted by sudden provocation rather than premeditated murder. (Paras 18, 22, 26)

Result: Criminal Appeal No. 3997 of 2011 allowed in favor of Satrajit Rai. Criminal Appeal No. 4595 of 2013 partly allowed, with Hridaya Rai's conviction modified from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC.

Table of Content
1. prosecution's case and marriage details. (Para 1 , 4)
2. defense arguments regarding dying declaration. (Para 2 , 5 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's observations on dying declaration's validity. (Para 3 , 6 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17)
4. final conclusions and adjustments of sentences. (Para 15 , 16 , 29 , 30)
5. analysis of culpable homicide versus murder. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 26)

ORDER :

Order on Criminal Misc. 4^th Bail Application No. 19 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 4595 of 2013

1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wishes to press the above noted application and rather he intends to argue the appeal and hence the same may be dismissed as not pressed.

3. Accordingly, the above noted 4^th bail application of the appellant is hereby dismissed as not pressed.

Order on Criminal Appeals

1. The above noted criminal appeals have been filed against the judgement and order dated passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 69 of 2010 ( State vs. Hridaya Rai ) and S.T. No. 330 of 2010 ( State vs. Satrajeet Rai and Another ) under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Bansgaon, District- Gorakhpur, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302 /34 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for six months.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased was married to the appellant, Hridaya Rai on 30.04.2008. The mediator of their marriage was co-accused, Satrajeet Rai and his wife, Smt. Nirmala Rai, who were related to the informant. Sufficient dowry in cash and household goods were given in the marriage for the couple but later the deceased came to know that her husband, appellant, Hridaya Rai, was having illicit relationship with co-accused, Smt. Nirmala Rai, which was known to co-accused, Satrajeet Rai also but he never protested against the same. The appellant used to lookafter the business of co-accused, Satrajeet Rai and give his earning to him also. He neglected to look after the deceased, his wife. The deceased informed her family members about these facts and also that accused persons are demanding Rs. 1 lac more towards the dowry and are harassing her and threatening to cause her murder. The deceased gave birth to a child and her harassment further increased. On 02.09.2009 at about 10:00 p.m the accused persons badly beated the deceased and after pouring kerosene oil over her put her on fire. On hearing her cries her father-in-law, Vinay Rai, brother-in-law, Amresh Rai, sister-in-law, Niti Rai and brother of her father-in-law, Ramakant Rai, and other villagers came and after opening the main door of the house took out the three accused. Family members of her matrimonial home took her to the hospital in burnt condition and information was given to the informant on the next day. Thereafter, the F.I.R was lodged by the informant which was registered as Case Crime No. 500 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 511 IPC and Section ¾ of D.P. Act.

3. After framing of the charges the prosecution examined P.W.-1, Parvati Devi, grand-mother of deceased; P.W.-2, Asha Devi, mother of deceased; P.W.-3, Kumari Bacchi Rai, sister of deceased. All of them admitted marriage of the deceased with appellant, Hridaya Rai, but did not supported the allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased for the same. P.W.-4, Medical Officer, Mahila Chikitsalaya, Gorakhpur, proved the post-mortem report of the deceased stated that her death could have been caused by the burn injuries. P.W.-5, Sunil Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, proved that he was posted in Sadar Hospital, Gorakhpur and dying declaration of the deceased was recorded in his presence. He took down the dying