SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(MP) 1579

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Ajit Singh, N.K. Gupta, JJ.
Ashok Prajapati - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2170-2010
Decided On : 15-12-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.C. Datt, Senior Advocate and Siddharth Datt, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Bramhadatt Singh and Panel Lawyer.

The trustworthiness of dying declarations and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence are crucial in determining guilt in criminal cases.

Headnote:

Dying Declaration - Murder - IPC 302, 498-A - [302, 498-A] - The court analyzed the dying declarations, circumstantial evidence, and legal principles related to dying declarations. It found that the dying declarations were not trustworthy beyond doubt, and the chain of circumstantial evidence was broken against the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant cannot be held guilty of the offenses under Section 302 and 498-A of IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of offenses under Section 302 and 498-A of IPC based on the dying declarations of the deceased, who alleged that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The appellant abjured his guilt and no defense evidence was adduced. The court considered the dying declarations, circumstantial evidence, and legal principles related to dying declarations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dying declarations were not trustworthy beyond doubt, and the chain of circumstantial evidence was broken against the appellant. It concluded that the appellant cannot be held guilty of the offenses under Section 302 and 498-A of IPC.

Issues: The issues revolved around the trustworthiness of the dying declarations, the presence of kerosene, the motive of the appellant, and the conduct of the deceased. The court also considered the sufficiency of evidence for the offenses under Section 302 and 498-A of IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles related to dying declarations and circumstantial evidence. It emphasized the need for dying declarations to be free from vice of infirmities and to command acceptance at the hands of the court. The court also considered the absence of motive and the conduct of the deceased in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The appellant's conviction and sentence for offenses under Section 302 and 498-A of IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court directed the appellant's release from jail without delay.

JUDGMENT :

N.K. Gupta, J.

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.9.2010 passed by the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.713/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 302, 498-A of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and 1 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-. Default sentence of 3 months and 7 days was also imposed respectively in lieu of payment of fine.

2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, deceased Manisha Prajapati was married to the appellant on 28.6.2009. On 28.8.2009, an intimation was received at Police Station Gunga that in the house of the appellant, a gas cylinder had exploded. Head Constable Ramashray Yadav (P.W.10) therefore alongwith Constable Ramkrishna Tiwari went to the house of the appellant, situated at village Nipaniya. Head Constable Ramashray Yadav found that there was no incident of explosive of gas cylinder but, Manisha Bai had sustained burn injuries and she was taken to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal by an emergency ambulance No. 108. Since other family members of the appellant were not present in the house at that time, Kamalrani @ Bhagwati Bai (P.W.2), wife of cousin of the appellant alongwith Ramesh (P.W.1) took the deceased Manisha to the hospital. There Manisha disclosed to these witnesses that she had sustained burn injuries due to the flames of Chulha (Earthen stove). Dr.Chourasiya recorded the MLC report, Ex.P/1 and Manisha was admitted in the hospital for treatment. On 29.8.2009, Executive Magistrate Shantaram Umhare (P.W.11) recorded the dying declaration, Ex.P/12, in which Manisha stated that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and set fire. Simultaneously, SHO Police Station Gunga Shri Alok Shrivastava (P.W.13) had recorded a Dehati Nalshi (FIR of the spot), Ex.P/20 and registered a case. On 31.8.2009, Manisha Bai died due to the burn injuries. Dr.Geetarani (P.W.9) had performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Manisha Bai and found that she died due to complications of burn injuries. Dr.D.K. Sharma (P.W.1), Senior Scientist Officer of Forensic Science Mobile Unit, Bhopal had also visited the spot on 28.8.2009 and he gave a spot inspection report, Ex.P/24 alongwith spot map, Ex.P/25. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bairasiya, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea but, he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

4. Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, after considering the prosecution's evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

6. In the present case, there is no eye witness to the incident. When incident takes place within the premises of a closed house then, there is no possibility to get any eye witness, unless any family member volunteers. In the present case, Manisha was residing in the her marital house alongwith appellant, his parents and sister. However, according to her dying declaration, Ex.P/12, she was all alone in the house and therefore, there was no possibility of any eye witness, who would have witnessed the entire incident.

7. The entire case depends upon the dying declaration given by Manisha. There are two sets of dying declarations available on record. Firstly, the oral dying declaration of Manisha proved by witnesses Ramesh (P.W.1) and Kamalrani @ Bhagwati Bai (P.W.2) alongwith entry relating to history of incident in MLC report, Ex.P/1. Second set of the dying declarations comprises of Ex.P/12 recorded by the Executive Magistrate Shantaram Umhare (P.W.11), Dehati Nalshi, Ex.P/20 and case diary statement of Manisha recorded by SHO Shri Alok Shrivastav

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top