The High Court of Chhattisgarh on October 7, 2025, acquitted Bhemeshvar @ Ravi of the charge of murdering his wife, setting aside a trial court’s life imprisonment sentence. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the conviction, based solely on the deceased’s dying declaration, could not be sustained due to a “fatal” procedural lapse: the absence of a clear certificate from a doctor confirming the victim’s “fit state of mind” when the statement was recorded.
The Court held that this omission created a significant doubt, making it unsafe to uphold the conviction. In its judgment, the High Court also issued stringent directives to the state government to prevent such investigative failures in the future.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on April 24, 2019, when Bhemeshvar @ Ravi allegedly poured kerosene on his wife, Laxmibai, and set her on fire at their home in village Barahi. Laxmibai sustained severe burn injuries and succumbed to them on May 5, 2019, at DKS Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur.
Following an investigation, which included recording a dying declaration from Laxmibai, the Balod Police filed a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On June 9, 2022, the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. This judgment was challenged by the appellant in the present criminal appeal before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Bharat Sharma, counsel for the appellant, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that there was no eyewitness to the incident. He contended that the appellant himself had taken the deceased to the hospital. The core of his argument was the challenge to the dying declaration, which he submitted was unreliable as there was “no certificate of the Doctor available in this case which may suggest that the deceased was in a fit mental state to give her dying declaration.”
In his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the appellant had stated that the incident was an accident. He claimed his wife had been drinking alcohol and, as there was no electricity, they had lit a candle from which her saree accidentally caught fire.
Representing the State of Chhattisgarh, Advocate General Mr. Prafull N Bharat countered that the trial court had correctly convicted the appellant based on the evidence on record. He argued that the judgment was justified and did not warrant interference from the High Court.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court observed that the appellant’s conviction rested solely on the dying declaration (Exhibit P/12), recorded on April 25, 2019, by Naib Tahsildar Rakesh Kumar Dewangan (PW-3). The deceased had sustained approximately 80% burn injuries.
The bench noted with concern the absence of a medical certificate attesting to the victim’s mental fitness. This prompted the court to initiate its own inquiry, directing the Superintendent of DKS Hospital and the District Magistrate, Raipur, to file affidavits. When these proved unsatisfactory, the court directed the Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh to conduct a detailed departmental enquiry.
The enquiry report revealed that the attending Resident Doctor, Dr. Ruby Singh, believed the patient was fit to give a statement. However, Dr. Singh stated that her opinion would have been written on the police memo, which was returned, and no copy was kept by the hospital. Critically, Dr. Ruby Singh was never examined as a witness during the trial.
The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of A.P., which distinguished between a patient being “conscious” and being in a “fit state of mind.” The judgment quoted the Supreme Court’s finding: “In medical science two stages namely conscious and a fit state of mind are distinct and are not synonymous. One may be conscious but not necessarily in a fit state of mind.”
Applying this principle, the High Court found the dying declaration in the present case to be suffering from a grave infirmity. The bench stated, “The absence of a certificate from the treating Doctor with regard to mental fitness of the deceased is a big lacuna on the part of the investigating agency and the said lacuna would definitely be beneficial for the accused/appellant as in absence of any such certificate, it would not be safe to convict the appellant.”
The court further observed that the failure of the Naib Tahsildar (PW-3) and the Investigating Officer (PW-10) to obtain and preserve this crucial certificate was a serious lapse. It noted that the possibility of suicide or an accidental fire, as suggested by the appellant, could not be ruled out, creating “grave suspicion.”
Final Decision and Directives
Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court delivered its verdict:
“In view of the aforesaid analysis, and with a heavy heart, we are constrained to observe that the learned trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting and sentencing the appellant… The conviction recorded by the trial Court on the basis of dying declaration (Exhibit P/12) cannot be sustained.”
The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC. Bhemeshvar @ Ravi, who had been in jail since May 25, 2019, was ordered to be released forthwith.
Before parting with the case, the Court issued a significant directive to the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, to prevent the recurrence of such lapses. The Court mandated:
“…while recording a dying declaration, a clear, written, and contemporaneous certificate must invariably be obtained from the attending Medical Officer certifying the mental fitness of the declarant at the relevant time. Such certification shall be treated as a mandatory procedural safeguard to eliminate any doubt regarding the genuineness and voluntariness of the dying declaration.”
