Case: Dasin Bai @ Shanti Bai Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

2. On February 1, 2000, in the evening, one Raju Rajak (who is the deceased in this case) was roaming near Kargi road railway station after finishing his work in a hotel. There he met with Dasin Bai, the Appellant herein. On the request of Dasin Bai, he went to drop her to her house at Kotsagar Para, Kota, and after dropping her there when he was returning, Dasin Bai asked her to stay back at her house. The deceased slept there by covering himself with a quilt. While he was asleep, Dasin Bai poured Kerosene, kept in a Jerricane, on him. The deceased woke up by the smell of Kerosene and at the same time, Dasin Bai set him on fire with a match stick. He got burnt and shouted for help. On hearing his shout, a neighbor, namely Santosh Yadav and others ran towards the house of Dasin Bai3. Santosh Yadav covered the body of the deceased with a shawl while Dasin Bai was standing there. Santosh Yadav (PW 1) brought Raju Rajak out, while the smell of kerosene was still emanating from the body of Raju. Raju disclosed that Dasin Bai poured kerosene on him and set him on fire. Raju was taken to Primary health centre, Kota and then he was taken to District hospital, Bilaspur for treatment where on 3.2.2000 he died. In the hospital, dying declaration of Raju was recorded by S.L. Soni (PW 12) in the presence of Radheyshyam (PW 3), Santosh and Basant Singh4. The investigating officer seized burnt bedding, bed sheet, plastic jerrican, one match box, one half-burnt match stick, half burnt clothes of the deceased and one wrist watch from the place of occurrence. Upon investigation, it was found that Dasin Bai committed murder by setting the deceased on fire. She was arrested, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions for trial5. The Prosecution examined 12 witnesses to establish the charge against the accused. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused examined one witness, namely, Basant Singh Thakur in her defence6. The Sessions Court after hearing the counsel on both the sides and after perusing the record, by its judgment dated September 29, 2001, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The High Court upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Against the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal petition from jail.

Court's reasoning:
12. For the factual situation before us, we find that there is consistency between the statements of Santosh Yadav (PW1), and Radheyshyam (PW3), who were present when Raju gave the oral dying declaration in the hospital, before he succumbed to the injuries. There is consistency in their statements, both stated that they reached the house of Dasin Bai on hearing the voice save-save13. Further, the appellant has alleged the dying declarations to be impossible to give as the deceased was not in a position to do so, as he had suffered burn injuries. However, this Court has rightly taken the following view in a situation as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent in Pothakamuri Srinivasulu v. State of A.P.,(2002) 6 SCC 399 ,14. Applying the ratio of the above mentioned cases to the present case, we find that the counsel for the appellant has argued on the same lines. Merely because the deceased suffered 70 per cent burns, this does not raise an assumption that he could not have given the oral dying declaration. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right in believing the oral dying declaration of the deceased as it did not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the deceased could not give a dying declaration is devoid of merit15. We are of the opinion that present case also involves appreciation of circumstantial evidence and application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which unambiguously lays down the law with respect to any fact especially within the knowledge of a person16. Further, while dealing with issue of cases resting on circumstantial evidence, where the presence of special knowledge is with the accused, this Court has reiterated time and again that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him by Section 106, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him20. Further, with regard to the aspect of the witnesses, PW-1 and PW-3, who recorded the dying declaration, were neighbours of the accused and hence the Trial Court correctly held that they are not interested witnesses. The findings of the Trial Court also bring to light the fact that they had no animosity with the appellant, and were visiting her house only on the fateful night.