Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2285
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK RUSIA, ANIL VERMA, JJ
Nandkishore – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRA 1750/2015
Sudha Shrivastava,Advocate General
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and voluntary, emphasizing the necessity of the deceased's mental fitness at the time of the statement.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 498-A - Conviction for murder and dowry harassment - Appellants convicted for life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for dowry harassment - Evidence of dying declaration and circumstantial evidence considered - Acquittal of two appellants due to lack of evidence against them - Conviction of one appellant upheld based on direct involvement in the crime. (Paras 1, 21, 22, 23)
(B) Dying Declaration - Legal principles - A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence and is voluntary - The court must be satisfied about the deceased's mental state at the time of making the statement. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Swati, who was set ablaze after being harassed for dowry. The dying declaration implicated only one appellant directly, while the others were acquitted due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 2, 21)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction of Sarita was upheld due to her direct involvement, while Nandkishore and Vikas were acquitted for lack of evidence. (Paras 22, 23)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the dying declaration and the sufficiency of evidence against each appellant. (Paras 19, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the dying declaration and the need for corroboration only when the declaration is suspicious. The evidence against Sarita was deemed sufficient for conviction. (Paras 16, 21)
Result: Appeals allowed for Nandkishore and Vikas; conviction of Sarita under Section 302 IPC upheld.
Since both these appeals have been filed against the common impugned judgment, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
1. Appellants have preferred both the Criminal Appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “ Cr.P.C .”) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2015 passed by the 3rd ASJ, Dewas (M.P.) in S.T. No.181/2013. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
- Name of the appellant Conviction u/S Sentence Fine amount Imprisonment in lieu of payment of fine.
- Nandkishore 498-A IPC 3 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- 3 months R.I. Vikas 498-A IPC 3 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- 3 months R.I. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 1 year R.I. Sarita 498-A IPC 3 years R.I. Rs.5,000/- 3 months R.I. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 1 year R.I.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that marriage of the appellant Vikas was solemnized with Swati (deceased) on 21.4.2008 in the group marriage ceremony (lEesyu) in presence of all the relatives of both the sides. After 2-3 months deceased was harassed by her husband, mother- in-law, father-in-law and sisters-in-law for bringing less dowry. She was mentally and physically harassed day-to-day and money was demanded from her parents. On 19.3.2013 some quarrel was taken place in the matrimonial house of the deceased. Deceased Swati informed her father Umesh. When the parents of the deceased reached at the matrimonial home of Swati, they saw her in burnt condition. Deceased Swati in her dying declaration deposed that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister- in-law and husband poured kerosene oil upon her and set her ablaze.
During the treatment, deceased has been died. The death was reported to the police station and investigation was started.
3. Further prosecution story is that the MLC of the deceased has been done and after the death her postmortem was conducted by Dr.
Prashant Rajput (PW-18) and as per the postmortem report, her death was homicidal in nature. Investigating officer has seized the treatment papers of the deceased. Investigating officer Mr. Mahendra Tarnekar (PW-17) has recovered marriage card of the deceased from the possession of her father. Merg has been registered. Investigating officer prepared spot map. MLC of accused Vikas was also done by Dr. Sandeep Jatav and OPD slip has been recovered from his possession. All the accused persons were arrested. ASI N.S. Kanesh (PW-13) recovered a plastic can containing smell of the kerosene oil, matchstick box and burnt matchstick from the spot.
4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the JMC, Dewas who has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Later on, the case was transferred to 3rd ASJ, Dewas. The trial court on the basis of the allegations made in the charge sheet, framed the charges under Section 304-B, 498-A & 302 of IPC against the appellants and co-accused Vandana and Veena. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Trial court after completion of trial, scrutinized the entire evidence available on record and convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences as mentioned hereinabove and acquitted the co-accused Vandana and Veena from all the charges.
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants have preferred both the criminal appeals before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Nandkishore (in CRA No.1750/2015) contended that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to the law and facts available on record. It is neither legal, nor proper, nor correct. The trial court was wrong in believing the prosecution witnesses and discarding the defence version. There is material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. There was no continuous demand of dowry. Trial court has ignored these aspects. Prior to the incident no FIR has been lodged against the appellants.
There are so many lapses in the investigation. Hen
