The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of two accused in a dowry death case, emphasizing that an authentic and trustworthy dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, dismissed the appeal of Sudhir Mahana and his mother, Shakuntla, challenging their conviction under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background
The case pertains to the death of Pooja, wife of Sudhir Mahana, who succumbed to burn injuries on September 17, 2018, just two years after her marriage. The prosecution alleged that on September 13, 2018, the accused poured kerosene oil over Pooja and set her ablaze at their residence near Jagannath Temple, Pusour, District Raigarh, due to ongoing demands for dowry.
After sustaining 83% burn injuries, Pooja was initially treated at Community Health Centre, Pusour, before being referred to District Hospital, Raigarh. Her dying declaration, recorded by Executive Magistrate Leeladhar Chandra, named her husband Sudhir Mahana and mother-in-law Shakuntla as the perpetrators of the crime.
Legal Proceedings and Judgment
The Sessions Court in Raigarh, in its judgment dated October 14, 2019, found Sudhir Mahana and Shakuntla guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The trial court’s verdict was based on Pooja’s dying declaration and supporting medical and forensic evidence, including an FSL report confirming the presence of kerosene at the crime scene.
In their appeal (CRA No. 1558 of 2019), the accused challenged the credibility of the dying declaration, arguing that Pooja was not in a fit state to give a statement. Their defense also pointed out that no medical officer clearly certified her mental and physical fitness to provide such a declaration.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the credibility of the dying declaration (Ex.P/19). The court referred to medical evidence which confirmed that Pooja was in a conscious state when her statement was recorded. The Bench noted:
“Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the Court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration.”
The court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), Purshottam Chopra v. State (2020), and Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which upheld the evidentiary value of dying declarations when recorded in a fit state of mind.
Key Legal Takeaways
1. Dying Declarations Are Admissible – The court reaffirmed that Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act permits dying declarations as admissible evidence in criminal trials.
2. No Corroboration Required – If found voluntary and trustworthy, a dying declaration alone can be the basis for conviction.
3. Conscious State Certification – The court dismissed the contention regarding lack of a specific medical certification, as the evidence suggested that Pooja was aware and oriented at the time of recording.
Final Verdict
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming life imprisonment for Sudhir Mahana and Shakuntla. It also directed that they continue to serve their sentence and advised them of their right to appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
