Reiterating the legal principle that a credible dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the life sentence awarded to Dhaneshwar Yadav and his mother Mangli Bai for the murder of Dhaneshwar’s wife, Radhabai. The Court found that the deceased’s dying declaration was clear, voluntary, and consistent, and hence sufficient for conviction even in the absence of corroborative evidence.
The judgment was delivered by the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in Criminal Appeal No. 1281 of 2024.
Background
The appellants, Dhaneshwar Yadav and Mangli Bai, were convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2022, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 each. The conviction was primarily based on the dying declaration of Radhabai, who succumbed to burn injuries on 6 September 2021.
The prosecution alleged that on 1 September 2021, the accused poured kerosene on Radhabai and set her on fire for not bringing money from her parents’ house. She sustained severe burn injuries and was admitted to hospital, where her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate.
Arguments by Appellants
Counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the dying declaration lacked reliability, the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay, and several material witnesses turned hostile. The defence also contended that the incident was a case of suicide, as Radhabai was allegedly upset over being denied permission to visit her parental home.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha noted that the trial court rightly held the death to be homicidal, based on the postmortem findings and medical testimony of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14), who opined that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to burn injuries.
The Court emphasized the established legal position under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and referred to precedents including:
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
- Purshottam Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 11 SCC 489
- Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710
Quoting from the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated:
“Once the dying declaration is found to be authentic, inspiring confidence of the Court, the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration.”
The dying declaration (Ex.P-17), recorded by Executive Magistrate Umang Jain (PW-12) and preceded by a fitness certification from Dr. Ajeem Alam (PW-11), specifically stated that both the husband and mother-in-law poured kerosene on Radhabai and set her on fire. The Bench noted that the declaration was consistent and voluntary, and no credible evidence was presented to discredit its authenticity.
While the defence brought witnesses who claimed the deceased had expressed suicidal intent, the Court found these testimonies unreliable and inconsistent with the medical, forensic, and documentary evidence. The recovery of kerosene-scented items and a matchbox from the crime scene further supported the prosecution’s case.
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench affirmed the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court.
“There is sufficient evidence available on record to believe that the dying declaration given by Radhabai (Ex.P-17) is true and voluntary,” the Court held.
The Court directed that the appellants shall serve the remaining period of their sentence and be informed of their right to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court through legal aid.
Case Title:Dhaneshwar Yadav & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: CRA No. 1281 of 2024
