Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
Anand Pathak, Hirdesh, JJ.
Shri Ram Singh Sengar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7985 of 2018
Decided On : 14-07-2025
For the Appellant :Shri Ashok Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Vijay Sundaram, P.P
A Dying Declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if credible, even when unsupported by other evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 389(1) - Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder - Appellant convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; the dying declaration deemed reliable, and evidence showed intent to kill, confirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 3, 6, 17, 34)
(B) Dying Declaration - Admissibility and Evidentiary Value - A dying declaration, even uncorroborated, may suffice for conviction if deemed credible; the court must ensure that the statement was made voluntarily and accurately reflects the deceased's intent. (Paras 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with murdering his wife, who was set ablaze after an argument. The incident occurred on February 1, 2016, and she died from injuries shortly after. Eyewitnesses, including the couple's children, did not corroborate the prosecution's narrative.
Findings of Court:
The Dying Declaration was found credible, and the appellant's claim of a sudden altercation was insufficient to alter the conviction for murder.
Issues: The court examined the credibility of the Dying Declaration and whether the evidence established intent for murder versus accidental death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the Dying Declaration constitutes substantive evidence if its voluntariness and reliability are established; any conflict in witness testimony does not undermine this evidence when detailed adequately.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing for bail application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts surrounding the conviction of the appellant. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments disputing the conviction based on evidence analysis. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. alternate argument regarding intent and appropriate charge. (Para 12 , 34) |
| 5. state's rebuttal of appellant's claims. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. reliability of dying declaration as a piece of evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. affirmation of trial court's judgment and dismissal of appeal. (Para 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Hirdesh, J.
Today, this case is listed for hearing on IA No.12762 of 2025, third application under Section 389(1) of CrPC moved on behalf of sole appellant- Ram Singh Sengar for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.
2. After withdrawal of aforesaid I.A. No.12762 of 2025, matter was placed at post-lunch session and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2018 passed by 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P. in S.T. No. 181/2016 whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and further convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulations. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that Usha Sengar was married with appellant on 05.05.1992. On 01.02.2016 at about 08:00 PM, appellant came to the house after taking the liquor and started beating children. When she objected to it, appellant also beat her and thereafter poured kerosene on her and lit match stick and set her ablaze. Due to which, her body caught fire and she got burnt. Children of deceased Bhawana (PW-2) and Mohini (PW-3), who were present on the spot, saved her and called their maternal uncle Manoj Singh (PW-8). She was admitted in a burnt condition in Burn Ward of JA Hospital, Gwalior by her brother where Duty Doctor Devesh Sharma (PW-7) sent an information to PS Bahodapur, Gwalior regarding the incident. MLC Report and case-sheet (Ex.P-12) were prepared. On 02.02.2016, Statment of Smt. Usha under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P-16 by Head Constable Sheikh Shakeel Khan (PW-11). On same day, on information received from the Police Station Kampoo, Gwalior, Shivnandan Singh Kushwah (PW-9), the then Naib Tehsildar reached the Burn Ward of JA Hospital, Gwalior and recorded Dying Declaration of Smt. Usha vide Ex.P-14. During treatment, Smt. Usha died on 05.02.2016. The said information of death was given telephonically by Dr. Devesh Sharma to PS Bahodapur. Post-mortem of dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-15. On such allegations, PS Bahodapur registered FIR at Crime No.09/2016. During the investigation, Safina form was prepared vide Ex.P-6 and Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared vide Ex.P-7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-1. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-17. Relevant seizures were made. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial.
5. Charges were framed. Appellant denied committing the alleged crime and pleaded trial. During trial, appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined twelve witnesses, whereas appellant did not examine and produce any witness in order to lead evidence in his defence.
6. The Trial Court, after evaluating documentary as well as oral evidence and other material available on record, convicted and sentenced present appellant, as aforesaid
7. The appellant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment filed this instant appeal on vari
