In another recent instance of burning of a wife for failing to fulfil dowry demands, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) clarified that the percentage and degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility of a dying declaration; and the decisive factor would be the quality of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to make the statement.
Referring to the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of Purshottam Chopra vs State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi) [2020 AIR (SC) 346], the Court asserted that if, after scrutiny, it is found that the statement placed as a dying declaration is voluntary, coherent and consistent, then there is no legal impediment in recording a conviction on its basis even without corroboration.
Finding that the prosecution had successfully proved that the appellants-accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty over their demand for Rs. 20,000 and, in furtherance of their common intention, committed her murder by pouring kerosene on her, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 498A read with Section 302 IPC, deeming the judgment to be based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sandipkumar C. More and Justice Y.G. Khobragade observed that a dying declaration could be the sole basis of conviction even without corroboration, if it inspires confidence in the Court that the declarant was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement, and that it was a voluntary statement, which was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.
The Bench reiterated that the law does not provide as to who could record a dying declaration, nor is there any prescribed format or procedure for the same, but the person recording a dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the statement.
The Bench found the evidence of the deceased’s parents to be corroborative and sufficient to prove that “soon before the incident, the deceased was subjected to cruelty” for the non-fulfilment of the dowry demand for Rs. 20,000. The Bench observed that the testimony of the medical officer established that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind when the recording of the statement began.
The Bench noted that physical evidence, including a stove, a can with kerosene, and burnt clothes, was seized from the spot, and the FSL report confirmed the presence of kerosene residues. Accordingly, the Bench concluded that although the deceased became semi-conscious later on, it would not invalidate the statement recorded before that point.
Briefly, the deceased was married to the first appellant-accused (Dhanraj), and shortly after the marriage, the appellant allegedly made a demand of Rs. 20000 from the deceased’s parents for the construction of a house. As the demand was not met, the appellant inflicted several instances of cruelty against the deceased’s family, and later, set the deceased on fire by pouring kerosene. When the neighbours saw the deceased burning, they extinguished the fire and took her to the hospital. However, after giving her dying declaration before the ASI, certifying her condition, the deceased succumbed to her injuries.
The Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302, read with section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment. The appellant, therefore, approached the High Court challenging the dying declaration, and argued that a person with 98% burns could not be conscious or fit to give a statement. They also argued that the thumb impression on the declaration was not attested by the time the medical officer noted the deceased had become unconscious.
Appearances:
Advocate Vikas S. Tanwade, for the Appellant
Advocate S. P. Sonpawale, for the Respondent/ State
