Bhajju @ Karan Singh vs State Of M.P

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal fall within a very narrow compass and are being stated at the very outset. Bhajju @ Karan Singh, the appellant herein, was married to Medabai, the deceased, and was living in Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh. Bhajju had doubts about the chastity of his wife and 2 often used to accuse her of having illicit relations with one Ramdas. According to the appellant, she also had a lose temper and on one occasion, she had left their one month old child on a platform and had gone to her parental house along with her son, Harendra, aged about four years. It is stated that he had even reported this incident at the Police Station, Niwadi, on 2nd September, 1995. On the other hand, the prosecution has alleged that besides accusing the deceased of having illicit relations, he used to ill-treat her and even question the paternity of the children born out of the wedlock. In fact, on the evening before the incident in question, he had beaten his wife with slipper. On 12th September, 1995, at about 7.00 a.m., when she was cleaning the kitchen, Bhajju poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze with the help of a match stick. She raised hue and cry. Ayub (PW3) and Pratap (PW2) from the neighbourhood reached the spot. They took her to the hospital in the taxi where she was examined by Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW9), vide report Exhibit 14. Dehati Nalishi, Exhibit P16 was recorded on the basis of which FIR Exhibit P14 was recorded and a case was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). She was admitted to the hospital and was found to be having 60 per cent burn injuries and her blouse was smelling of kerosene oil at that time. Her 3 dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate-cum- Tehsildar at about 9.10 a.m. vide Exhibit P4. She succumbed to the burn injuries and died on 17th October, 1995. A case under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant-accused. After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report. Post mortem was performed and the cause of death was opined to be extensive burn injuries. During the investigation, statements of other witnesses including Pratap, Ayub and Lakhanpal (PW-1) were recorded and the site plan was prepared. Certain items were recovered from the site like broken bangles, match box, half burnt match sticks, clothes of the deceased, kerosene oil container, etc. Based on the ocular and documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer filed the charge- sheet before the court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant- accused was committed to the Court of Sessions where he was tried. The appellant put up the defence that because of her illicit relationship with Ramdas, their neighbor, and her arrogant attitude, the deceased was a difficult person to live with. However, on 12.9.1995, she accidentally caught fire and got burnt while she was preparing the food. As a result, she died and the accused was innocent. Disbelieving the defence of the accused and forming an opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case 4 beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded him rigorous imprisonment for life vide his judgment dated 9th February, 1998. This was challenged before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant/accused, giving rise to the present appeal.

4. Before we comment upon this defence and the evidentiary value of Exhibit D1, it will be appropriate to examine the case of the prosecution. The FIR, Ext P-17 itself was registered on the basis of a statement made by the deceased referred as Dehati Nalishi, Exhibit P-16, and a case was registered under Section 307 IPC. It is a matter of common prudence that a person who had been burnt and was having 60 per cent burn injuries would not be able to go to the hospital on her own and somebody must have taken her to the hospital. According to the prosecution, PW3 and PW2, had reached the spot and had taken the deceased to the hospital. Thus, they were the first persons whom the deceased met and as per the case of the prosecution, she had told them that Bhajju had poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. At the hospital, she was examined by Dr. Suresh Sharma, PW9, who in his statement had recorded that he has examined the deceased and she had as many as 10 injuries on her body and that some wounds on her body which were bleeding. According to the said 6 doctor, these injuries could have been caused by a Kada or some sharp object. The burn injuries were found to be 60 per cent. The person was burnt with kerosene oil. Lower parts of her body were burnt. Her left hand was burnt, right hand and arm were also burnt. He further stated that the statement of the deceased was recorded by the Tehsildar, on which she had put her thumb impression and that the dying declaration also had been written by the doctor declaring that she was in full senses to make the statement. In his cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that the blouse that Medabai was wearing was smelling of kerosene oil. Thus, the doctor is a witness to the dying declaration as well as to the condition and cause of death of the deceased.

8. The primary contention raised on behalf of the accused is 9 that the dying declaration, Ex. P4 being the sole piece of evidence, cannot be relied upon by the courts. There is no evidence corroborating Ex.P4. As such, the concurrent judgments of conviction are unsustainable.

The core concept is that the expectation of death must 14 be absolute and not susceptible to doubts and there should be no chance of operation of worldly motives."

22. These are matters of serious consequences and render the statement of all these three witnesses unreliable and undependable. Thus, these statements we would refer and rely (examination-in-chief) only to the extent they support the case of the prosecution and are duly corroborated, not only by other witnesses but even by the dying declaration and the medical evidence.

24. For these reasons, we find no ground to interfere in the concurrent judgments of conviction and order of sentence. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed accordingly.

[Swatanter Kumar] New Delhi;

March 15, 2012