The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of two accused in a murder case, ruling that a dying declaration recorded in the presence of an Executive Magistrate after a doctor certifies the patient is fit to give a statement can be relied upon as evidence.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal delivered this judgment on July 15, 2024 while dismissing the criminal appeals filed by the two accused – Ajay Verma and Amanchand Routiya.
Background of the Case:
The case relates to the murder of 18-year-old Ganga Yadav on August 16-17, 2020 in village Maldi of Balodabazar-Bhatapara district. As per the prosecution, accused Ajay Verma, who was in a relationship with Ganga, called her to meet him near a community building at midnight. There, he allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her on fire after an argument.
Ganga sustained 96% burn injuries and was admitted to a hospital in Raipur. Before succumbing to her injuries on September 20, 2020, she gave a dying declaration to an Executive Magistrate on August 18, 2020, naming Ajay Verma as the perpetrator. The second accused Amanchand Routiya was charged with destroying evidence.
On August 25, 2023, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara convicted Ajay Verma under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Amanchand Routiya was convicted under Section 201/34 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. Both filed appeals against their conviction in the High Court.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration
2. Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt
3. Applicability of Section 106 of Evidence Act regarding burden of proof
Court’s Decision:
The High Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the conviction, making the following key observations:
1. On dying declaration: “If the dying declaration has been recorded in presence of the Executive Magistrate after the Doctor holding the patient to be fit for giving the statement, reliance can be placed upon the same.”
2. The court noted that Dr. Deepika Sinha (PW-6) had certified the victim was fit to give a statement before and after the declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate Anjali Sharma (PW-13).
3. “We are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant โ Ajay Verma who is the author of crime in question relying upon the dying declaration (Ex.P-25) made by Geeta Yadav (deceased) before Executive Magistrate Anjali Sharma (PW-13) after getting fitness certificate by Dr. Deepika Sinha (PW-6) that she is capable to give statement,” the bench observed.
4. The court rejected the defense arguments about inconsistencies, stating: “There is sufficient evidence available on record to believe that the dying declaration has been given by Geeta Yadav (deceased) and her dying declaration (Ex.P-25) is true and voluntary.”
5. On corroborative evidence, the court noted: “On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Ajay Verma in the case, seizure of mobile phone and on the basis of memorandum statement of Amanchand Routiya, confiscation of an empty bottle of kerosene from the building near place of incident, a pair of red slippers of deceased Ganga Yadav and a black fullshirt used in cleaning the incident spot, have been proved by the evidence of prosecution witnesses.”
Also Read
The appeals were argued by advocates Satya Prakash Verma for Ajay Verma and Ruchi Nagar for Amanchand Routiya. The state was represented by Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur.
Case Details:
Criminal Appeal No. 1732 of 2023 – Ajay Verma vs State of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Appeal No. 1857 of 2023 – Amanchand Routiya vs State of Chhattisgarh
