Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4067
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK AGARWAL, AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH, JJ
DHARAMPAL CHOWDHARY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
CRA No. 10091 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Abhilash Kumar Dey
For the Respondents: Shri Ajay Tamrakar
The court upheld a conviction for murder based on valid oral dying declarations, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness credibility.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Conviction of appellant for murder based on oral dying declaration and circumstantial evidence. - The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on the testimony of a witness who heard her cries and her dying declaration implicating the appellant. The court emphasized the importance of the eyewitness account in corroborating the dying declaration. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 8)
(B) Evidence - Dying declaration - Court confirmed the validity of oral dying declarations despite challenges in the witness's credibility, asserting that the testimony provided sufficient grounds for conviction. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering his wife by setting her on fire. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies that included a dying declaration from the deceased. The witness saw the appellant at the scene and heard the victim's accusations. The defense claimed contradictions in the witness's testimony.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence compelling and upheld the conviction, disregarding the defense’s alibi as unsubstantiated.
Issues: Whether the witness's testimony and the dying declaration were credible and whether the defense's alibi was sufficiently corroborated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the oral dying declaration maintained its validity in light of corroborative evidence, and the defense's lack of supporting evidence weakened its claims.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
Dated :09-07-2025 Shri Abhilash Kumar Dey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Heard on I.A.No.32791/2024, which is first application for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Dharampal Chowdhary S/o Rikhiram Chowdhary.
Appellant-Dharampal Chowdhary is aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.01.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Shahdol (M.P.), in S.T. No.18/2014, whereby, appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC for which he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.
It is submitted that as per the prosecution story, Dr. S.C. Rai, working at District Hospital Anuppur, had given a written complaint to the SHO Police Station Anuppur, as contained in Ex.P/8, that Ritu Chowdhary wife of Dharampal Chowdhary, aged about 25 years, was referred from Community Health Center, Kotma, on account of burn injuries. She died on 30.04.2013 at 08:30 A.M.. Merg was registered at 'Zero'. Thereafter, 'Shav Panchnama' etc. were prepared, dead body was sent for postmortem and, thereafter, Merg No.18/13, was registered Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 02.05.2013.
During the Merg investigation, statements of various witnesses were recorded. Heeralal Chowdhary (PW/6), in his Merg statements had stated that on Tuesday at about 11:00 hours, he had heard cries from the house of Dharampal, saying 'Jal Gai-Jal Gai'. When he reached the house of Dharampal, his wife Ritu Chowdhary was on fire. When Heeralal (PW/6), asked Ritu as to how the incident took place, then she gave her statement that her husband Dharampal poured kerosene and had lit a match stick. This fact was narrated before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and, thereafter, on 04.05.2013, a five liter kerosene cane containing 100 ml of kerosene and a match box was recovered from the house of Rikhiram Chowdhary. Besides this, some burnt match sticks, three broken bangles, one 180 ml country liquor bottle, certain cloths smelling of kerosene etc. were seized at the instance of Rickhiram Chowdhary and spot map Ex.P/21 was prepared.
In Merg Investigation, it was found that Dharampal Chowdhary had put his wife Ritu Chowdhary on fire by pouring kerosene and lighting a match stick, as a result of which, case crime No.145/13 was registered at Police Station Jaitpur under Section 302 of IPC, matter was investigated, charge sheet was filed, matter was committed to the Sessions Court, where Sessions Court convicted the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that testimony of Heeralal (PW/6), cannot be accepted to be a valid dying declaration as Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI there are some contradictions in his testimony.
Reading from the cross-examination, it is submitted that Heeralal (PW/6), admitted that he was standing in the courtyard and had not gone inside the house. Thus, it is pointed out that probability of deceased giving an oral dying declaration gets blurred in view of the testimony and cross-examination of Heeralal (PW/6).
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Public Prosecutor, in turn submits that there is a categorical statement that on hearing the cries, this witness had gone to the house of Dharampal. He had seen Dharampal coming out shouting. He categorically stated that deceased had informed him that she was put on fire by her husband by pouring petrol and lighting a match stick. This witness has not been confronted either with Section
161 or 164 Cr.P.C. statements.
When these facts are taken into consideration, then it is evident that prima facie there is an oral dying declaration which has remained unrebutted throughout. Same stand has been taken by Heeralal (PW/6). There is another important aspect which is required to be dealt with that appellant examined himself as DW/1 and as a defence witness, he stated that he too had sustained burn inju
