The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, overturned the conviction of Arjun Singh Rajput in a murder case, emphasizing that a dying declaration alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction if there is doubt regarding the victim’s mental fitness at the time of making the statement. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, delivered this judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2021.
Case Background
The case revolved around the tragic death of Mona Singh, who suffered severe burn injuries in a house fire on May 3, 2018, in Surajpur district. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Arjun Singh Rajput, locked the victim inside the house, poured kerosene, and set it on fire, intending to kill her and usurp her property. Mona Singh succumbed to her injuries on May 11, 2018, and her dying declaration was recorded by Naib Tahsildar Kishore Kumar Verma (PW-13) on May 4, 2018.
The trial was conducted before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, who convicted Rajput under multiple provisions, including Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 436 (mischief by fire), 449 (house trespass), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court sentenced Rajput to life imprisonment and imposed fines.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue before the High Court was whether a dying declaration, made in the absence of medical certification regarding the victim’s mental fitness, could be relied upon as the sole basis for conviction. The defense, represented by Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, argued that:
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
There was no direct evidence, and the entire case was based on an alleged dying declaration.
The dying declaration was not corroborated by independent witnesses.
No medical officer certified that the victim was in a fit mental state to give a statement.
The statements of injured witnesses Shankar Kumar Ravi (PW-1) and Lado alias Samriddhi (PW-3) were inconsistent and unreliable.
On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, the Panel Lawyer for the State, contended that the dying declaration was true, voluntary, and reliable and should be sufficient for conviction.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court scrutinized the legal principles surrounding dying declarations, citing landmark judgments, including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695. It reiterated that:
A dying declaration can be a sole basis for conviction only if it is found to be true, voluntary, and made in a fit mental state.
The absence of medical certification regarding the victim’s fitness creates serious doubts.
The prosecution failed to produce corroborative evidence to support the dying declaration.
The investigation lacked credibility, as no forensic evidence confirmed the presence of kerosene or petrol at the crime scene.
The testimonies of key witnesses were inconsistent and could not firmly establish the guilt of the accused.
The Bench concluded that the conviction based solely on a doubtful dying declaration was legally unsustainable. It set aside the conviction and sentence of Arjun Singh Rajput, ordering his immediate release, provided he was not required in any other case.
