Dying Declaration Reliability Questioned: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Couple in Thinner Burning Case - 2025-04-02

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Couple in Thinner Burning Case, Citing Doubtful Dying Declaration and Eyewitness Accounts

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - In a significant judgment delivered on January 9, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court overturned a trial court's conviction and acquitted Kamar Ali Memon and Kajol Khan in a case involving the death of Anjum Naaz from severe burn injuries. The division bench, comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru , allowed the appeal (CRA No. 99 of 2020), citing serious doubts over the reliability of the dying declaration and eyewitness testimonies presented by the prosecution.

Case Background

The prosecution's case rested on the allegation that Kamar Ali Memon and Kajol Khan intentionally set Anjum Naaz, Kamar Ali 's first wife, on fire by pouring thinner on her. The incident allegedly occurred at Anjum Naaz’s residence in Bilaspur on September 28, 2017, following an argument about Kajol Khan ’s presence at Kamar Ali 's home late at night. Anjum Naaz sustained 79-80% burn injuries and succumbed to them on October 2, 2017. The trial court convicted both accused under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Arguments Presented

Appellants' Counsel , Mr. Ajay Ayachi , argued that the trial court's judgment was flawed and based on unreliable evidence. He contended that there were no credible independent witnesses to the incident and that the prosecution had concocted a false narrative. A key point of contention was the dying declaration of Anjum Naaz, which, the defense argued, was doubtful as it was recorded without proper medical certification of fitness and after the deceased was allegedly discharged against medical advice from the hospital. The defense leaned on the Supreme Court's ruling in Phulel Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2023) regarding the necessity of trustworthiness in dying declarations.

The State , represented by Mr. Akhilesh Kumar , G.A., defended the trial court's verdict, asserting that the evidence, including the dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, clearly implicated the appellants. They maintained that the trial court had correctly assessed the oral and documentary evidence.

Court's Observations and Reasoning

The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, sided with the appellants. Justice Rajani Dubey , writing for the bench, highlighted several critical discrepancies and doubts in the prosecution's case:

• Dying Declaration Doubt: The court noted the timeline inconsistencies. Dr. Shashikant Sahu (P.W.-1) stated Anjum Naaz was discharged against medical advice at 1:30 p.m. on September 28, 2017, while the Naib Tehsildar (P.W.-8) recorded the dying declaration between 1:00 p.m. and 1:45 p.m. on the same day. Crucially, the dying declaration (Ex.P/8) lacked a fitness certificate from the treating doctor. Citing Phulel Singh , the court emphasized that a dying declaration must be "trustworthy, reliable and one which inspires confidence" to be the sole basis of conviction. The judgment stated:

> "So, it is clear that dying declaration is not free from doubt and the same is not trustworthy and reliable."

• Contradictory Eyewitness Accounts: The prosecution presented two purported eyewitnesses, Dhaneshwar Manikpuri (P.W.-7) and Subhash Shrivas @ Sonu (P.W.-15). However, the court found their statements to be contradictory and unreliable. Dhaneshwar Manikpuri even denied his police statement and claimed it was fabricated. Regarding Subhash Shrivas @ Sonu 's testimony, the court questioned the logic of his action:

> "The aforesaid statement is also not reliable as if someone sees a burning person then he/she will try to rescue the injured rather than going home to wear clothes."

• Defence Evidence Considered: The court acknowledged the defense’s evidence, including the admission of Kajol Khan to a hospital for a caesarean section shortly after the incident, suggesting she was heavily pregnant at the time. The court observed that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, a fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence.

Final Verdict and Implications

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted Kamar Ali Memon and Kajol Khan of the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC. The appellants, who were on bail, will continue on bail for six months as per Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

This judgment underscores the critical importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases relying on dying declarations and eyewitness testimony. It serves as a reminder that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubts regarding the evidence can lead to acquittal, even in serious offenses like murder. The case highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinizing evidence meticulously to ensure justice is served, protecting individual liberty against potentially flawed prosecutions.