' DB: ‘Ho‘n’bl'e Shri Rajeev Gupta, C J , a Hon’blesur‘icsuix‘il Kamai'Siiihé, Criminal Amieal No.177 of 2005 r “Aghnu' . State‘6f Chhattisgarh f For consideration Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ,4 I ff/0’672’009 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA or Judw \ f iw Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge @ ‘ ' HIGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR s J V$ ram JUDGMENT ,. 3; HIGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPIJR DB Hon’ble Shn RaJeev Gupta, C J., Hon’ble Shr: Suml Kumar Smha Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2005 Aghnuram, Son of Lagdhu, aged about '40 years, Labour, > Occupation res1dent of v111age Kuthma, PS Bachlch f D1stt ”Jashpur (C G) ‘ ' APPELLANT Versus " :‘svtate Hof> Chhattisgarh‘ RESPONDENTS‘ ‘ I through V, ” Police Station V Bagicha, 3 Distt. Jashpur ’ (C.G) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF ' Appearance: Smt. Kiran Jain, Counsel for the appellant. . Mr. Ashish hukla Govt. Advocate forahe a I S, , t Stte. JUDGMENT (‘22 06.2009) , The following Judgment ofthe Court was delivered b'y ‘ SUNIL‘KUMAR SINHA, J, Appellant Aghnuram stands convicted .u/s 302rIPC and Sentenced, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine, of Rs.5000[—_, in defaultof payment of fine‘, to further undergo *S .I. for 5 months-iby the Second Additional ,Ses‘siOns Judge (FTC), Jashpur,‘i_nSessions Trial N0. 12/2002 0n 16.05.2002. \ , a CRIMINAL PROCEDURE T Cr.A..No.177‘of2oo‘5 I(2)" The facts; briefly stated, are a‘s uhder :'- ’ Deceased Guthriyari' Béi was the Wife of the appellant. The allegations are'that on 10.09.2001 at about 7 p.m. the appellant threw her on the ground poured kerosene 011 and caused burn 1nJur1es to her The f1rst Informatlon report was lodged by the deceased ' herself on 11.09.2001. The deceased was admitted to the 0 hospital and the dying declaration (EX.P.22) was recorded ‘ by the Executive Magistrate R.L. Gupta (P.W.14) onj 0 ‘1 1.95.2001. The deceased died in the hospital during the course of herr treatment on 17.9.2001. The postmortem examinationwas conducted by Dr. R.N. LDube‘y (P.W. 6), who prepared his report (EXP6) and opined that the cause of death was cardlogenlc and neurogenic shock due to burn injuries During the course of investlgatlon the Injury report of the deceased (EXP23) was also obtained in whlch 1t was shown that the deceased had received more than 80% burn injuries. After c‘omp‘letion'of usual investigation, the charge ‘sheet Was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate _ Jashpurnagar who 1n turn commltted the matter to the Sess1ons Court Jashpur from where, 1t was recelved on V l transfer by the II Addl. Sess1ons Judge (FTC), Jashpurnagar, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. (3) The conviction of the appellant is based upon the dying declaration (EXP-2:2) recorded by the Executive Magistrate R L ' , Gupta (P W 14) as also the oral dylng declaration made by the r , .' i deceased before Somaru (P W 1) and Baunath (P W 3) 2 3 Cr.A.No.177 of 2005 ' (4) Smt. Kiran Jain, learned cpunsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the dying declarations are not reliable, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant be set aside and he be acquitted. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. (6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Sessions Case. The contents of the. dying declaration (EXP-22) would show that a categorical statement was made by the deceased before the Executing Magistrate R.L. Gupta (P.W.l4) that on the fateful day, the appellant firstly forcibly tried her to drink liquor and when she resisted, he assaulted her and thereafter threw her on the ground and poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire by a match stick. The dying declaration bears thumb impression of the deceased and it has been signed by the Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate has taken due precaution and‘ has recorded the dying declaration after obtaining a certificate from the Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Bagicha, Where the deceased was admitted. The certification of the Magistrate is at the top of the dying declaration. There is no ambiguity, so far as the contents of the dying declaration are concerned. More over, this dying declaration is supported by the contents of the first 4 , Cr.A.N0. 177 of. 2005 information report (EXP-16) lodged by the deceased herself, in which, she gave all above details which are mentioned in the dying. declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate i R.L.Gupta (P.W. 14). (7) The Executive Magistrate, R.L. Gupta (P.W.14), deposed that on 11.9.2001 he received requisition (EXP—18) for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. On this, he - went to Community Health Center, Bagicha and contactedDr. D.C. Bakhla (P.W.16), who after examination of the deceased gave certificate regarding her competency to give dying declaration, and thereafter the dying declaration (Ex.P.22) was recorded in the Hospital. He supported the contents of the dying declaration by reproducing the contents of the same in his deposition. Though this Witness has been cross examined ‘ ‘ by the defence, but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance to show that either the \dying declaration was not recorded in proper manner or the deceased was not in a fit mental condition to give the ’dying declaration or the contents of the dying declaration were false and fabricated. The dying declaration (EXP. 22) has been recorded after due satisfaction of ’the Doctor as also the Executive Magistrate . regarding Competency of the deceased to give such declaration ~ and the contents of the dying declaration are fully corroborated by the contents of the First Information Report ’lodged by the deceased herself. ‘ We do not find any infirmity in the finding . recorded by the Sessions Court on such declaration made by % 5 ‘1 Cr.A.No.177 of 2005 the deceased Which was reduced into writing by the Executive Magistrate . (8) As referred to a‘bove, the dral dying declaration was also made by the deceased before Somaru (P.W.1) and Baijnath (P.W.3). Somaru P.W'.‘1 deposed that on the fateful day at about 8 p.m., deceased Gothiyari Bai came to his house. She had received burn injuries. Godhiyari Bai said that Aghnu had poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter she was burnt by him by a match stick. This witness had seen many burn injuries on the body of deceased. Baijnath (P.W.3) has been ‘ declared hostile but in the cross examination of the Public Prosecutor, he also categorically admitted that the deceased told him that she was burnt by the appellant after pouring kerosene oil on her. (9) On due consideration of the evidence of written dying declaration (EX.P.22) as also oral dying declaration made before Somaru (P.W.1) 8r, Baijnath (P.W.3) which are duly corroborated by the contents of First Information Report, we find that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in resting the conviction on the above evidence. (10) Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (2M / sd/ / sw— CHIEF JUSTICE K, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA \ Judge \ / /'