Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Rakesh Saksena, Sushma Shrivastava, JJ.
Rajiya Bi - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Cr. A. No. 1219-2005
Decided On : 20-03-2010
Dying Declaration - Conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code - Ex. P/11, Ex. P/19 - The court relied on the dying declarations of the deceased, which were consistent about the act of the Appellant and corroborated by witness testimony. The court found no inconsistencies in the dying declarations and held them to be truthful and trustworthy, leading to the conviction of the accused/Appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Firoza Bi, was set on fire by the Appellant, her mother-in-law, and her father-in-law. The dying declarations of the deceased, along with witness testimony, formed the basis of the conviction of the accused/Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the dying declarations to be truthful and trustworthy, leading to the conviction of the accused/Appellant. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of conviction.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the dying declarations and whether they could be the sole basis for convicting the accused/Appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dying declarations were consistent and corroborated by witness testimony, leading to the conclusion that they were truthful and trustworthy. The court also emphasized that the length of the statement is not as important as the fit state of mind of the victim to narrate the facts of the occurrence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction of the accused/Appellant was upheld.
Rakesh Saksena, J.
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 14th June, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Sessions Trial No. 41/2004, convicting the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. According to prosecution, mother-in-law (Appellant) and the father-in-law of Firoza Bi (deceased) used to quarrel with her and ask her to leave their house. On 21.12.2003 at about 12 O' clock in the noon they again quarreled and asked Firoza Bi and her husband Mohd. Alim to leave their house. Salma, the sister of deceased and Sahina, the wife of elder brother of Alim were also present at the house. After quarrel when Mohd. Naeem and Alim went to their shop, Rajiya Bi poured kerosene on Firoza Bi and threw a burning matchstick over her, due to which her clothes caught fire. Her father-in-law Mohd. Amin was also present there and was saying that she should also be turned out of the house. On getting information Naeem came back to his house. Firoza Bi narrated the incident to him. He, Habibur Rehman and other persons carried Firoza Bi to hospital. Her husband Mohd. Alim also reached the hospital at about 4 P.M. On getting information, O.P. Pastariya (P.W. 11), A.S.I. Police reached Nehru Hospital, Burhanpur, where Firoza Bi was taken for the treatment and on the information furnished by her recorded Dehati Nalshi (Ex.P/19). He also requested the doctor to record the dying declaration of Firoza Bi. Dr. M.K. Gupta (P.W. 5) examined the injuries of Firoza Bi and recorded her dying declaration Ex. P/11, wherein she stated that Appellant Raziya Bi and her father-in-law Mohd. Amin set fire to her.
3. On 22.12.2003 at about 12.55 A.M. Firoza Bi succumbed to her injuries. Postmortem of her body was conducted by Dr. B.D. Gattani (P.W. 15). After investigation, charge sheet was filed and case was committed for trial.
4. Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. According to them, in connivance with her husband Alim and husband's brother Naeem, Firoza Bi had set fire to herself with a view to pressurize them to dissuade from gifting their property to their daughter. Accused persons also examined five witnesses to substantiate their defence.
5. After trial, upon appreciation of evidence, relying mainly on the evidence of dying declaration, learned trial Judge convicted both the accused persons. Raziya Bi was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Mohd. Amin was convicted under Section 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During pendency of appeal, Appellant Mohd. Amin died and the appeal in respect of him stood abated.
6. Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court committed grave error in relying on the dying declaration for holding the Appellant guilty. Appellant was the step mother-in-law of the deceased. Relations between her and the deceased were not cordial. Before recording the dying declaration, deceased was tutored by her relatives. There was no independent corroboration of the dying declaration. He also placed reliance on Mohan Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2007) 9 SCC 151, State of U.P. v. Raj Bahadur 1993 Cri. L.J. 86, State of Gujarat v. Khumansingh Karsan Singh and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1641, Ram Nath Madhoprasad and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 420 and Laxmi (Smt.) v. Om Prakash and Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 118.
7. On the other hand, Shri J.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the State submitted that immediately after the occurrence, Dehati Nalshi (Ex. P/19) was recorded on the statement made by deceased, therefore, it was rightly treated as a dying declaration. The dying declaration (Ex. P/11) was recorded by doctor on being satisfied that deceased was in a fit condition to make the statement. Both the dying declarations were consistent about the act of Appel
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
