The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of appellant who is found guilty of commission of offences both under Sections 498A and 302 IPC, finding that the dying declaration of the deceased wife, certified as reliable by attending medical professionals, is strongly corroborated by the direct and unwavering testimony of a natural eyewitness and further supported by circumstantial evidence recovered from the scene of the crime.
The Court ruled that the testimony of doctors certifying the deceased’s conscious and fit state to make a statement will override contrary statements from non-medical witnesses. The collective and clinching nature of such evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and justifies the reversal of a trial court’s acquittal that was based on minor discrepancies.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti noted that the evidence established frequent quarrels over money and that the appellant used to treat the deceased with cruelty. This was deemed sufficient to establish that the appellant was frustrated and possessed a motive to commit the crime.
The Bench considered the testimony of the 16-year-old daughter of the appellant and the deceased, as ‘crucial and material’, as she gave a clear account of the quarrel, her father’s threat, and the act of him pouring kerosene and setting her mother on fire. The Bench found no inconsistencies in her statement and no reason to believe she would falsely depose against her own father.
On the medical evidence and cause of death, the Bench stated that the post-mortem, conducted by Dr. S. Rudramurthy, established the cause of death as septicaemia resulting from 85-90% superficial burn injuries. This confirmed that the death was a direct consequence of the burns sustained.
Further, the Bench found the dying declaration to be reliable based on corroborating evidence from multiple sources. Dr. HC Ramanna, certified that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state to give a statement when the police arrived. Further, Dr. Gurumurthy, also testified that the deceased had narrated the incident to him, implicating her husband. The Head Constable who recorded the statement, did so after receiving permission from the on-duty doctor.
On conflicting statements regarding consciousness, the Bench addressed the defence’s argument that the doctors had stated the deceased was not in a conscious state. It held that the statements of the treating doctors, who had professionally assessed her condition and certified her fitness to give a statement, must be given precedence over the observations of a police inspector and a layperson. The Bench reasoned she may have been momentarily unconscious due to sedatives but was otherwise fit to make a statement.
Also, the recovery of a matchbox, a kerosene tin, and burnt cloth pieces from the scene of the incident, proved by a neighbour via a mahazar, was seen as strong corroboration for the eyewitness account and the dying declaration, added the Bench.
Briefly, the appellant, Subramani, and the deceased, Chennamma, were married for seventeen years and had four children. After an initially happy marriage of three years, their relationship deteriorated, with the appellant allegedly subjecting the deceased to ill-treatment, cruelty, and persistent demands for money. On the night of July 20, 2000, following a quarrel, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased in a bathroom and set her on fire with a lit candle, after which he fled the house. Neighbours, alerted by her screams, extinguished the fire and transported her to Victoria Hospital, where she succumbed to her burn injuries three days later, on July 24, 2000.
An FIR was lodged by the deceased’s father under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the police filed a chargesheet against the appellant. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the small size of the bathroom, and the unreliability of the dying declaration due to the deceased’s 80-90% burn injuries. However, the High Court reversed this decision, convicting the appellant under both sections and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Shekhar G Devasa, AOR M/s. Devasa & Co., along with Advocates Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Muthanna, Rakesh Kini, and Shashi Bhushan Nagar, for the Appellant
AOR Sanchit Garga, along with Advocates Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Diksha Arora, Aarohi Garg, and Sankalp Mishra, for the Respondent
