The High Court of Chhattisgarh, while acquitting a man in a murder case due to “gross discrepancies” by the prosecution, has issued a strong directive to trial courts across the state to exercise vigilant oversight over the actions of investigating and prosecuting agencies. The Court emphasized that such supervision is necessary to prevent the accused from gaining an unfair advantage from prosecutorial lapses and to uphold the sanctity of a fair trial.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru made these significant observations while setting aside the life sentence of a man convicted for the murder of his wife. The acquittal was based on the unreliability of a dying declaration that was riddled with inconsistencies and lacked mandatory medical certification. The court lamented that the “significant lapses” by key witnesses and “the trial Court’s oversights” resulted in a “miscarriage of justice.”
The appellant had challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, dated November 27, 2024, which had convicted him under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that on May 2, 2019, the appellant beat his wife over a dowry dispute, poured kerosene on her, and set her ablaze. The woman succumbed to her injuries on July 10, 2019, nearly two months later. The post-mortem report cited “septicemia” as the cause of death. The trial court, relying primarily on a dying declaration recorded on May 21, 2019, convicted the husband while acquitting six other family members.
Arguments and Court’s Analysis
The defence counsel successfully argued that the conviction was untenable. He pointed out that key prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s own children, did not support the murder narrative and stated that their mother’s saree had caught fire accidentally.
The High Court’s decision hinged on the multiple fatal flaws in the dying declaration (Ex.P-36):
- Lack of Medical Certification: The judgment noted, “neither the treating Doctor nor any competent medical officer has certified the deceased to be in a fit state of mind to give statement.” The doctor who purportedly gave the fitness certificate was never examined in court.
- Glaring Discrepancies: The court highlighted inconsistencies in the recorded time and date of the declaration.
- Contradictory Witness Testimonies: The victim’s children testified that their parents lived happily, directly contradicting the prosecution’s story of dowry harassment.
- Broken Causal Link: The court noted that the death occurred two months after the incident due to septicemia, questioning if the burn injuries were the direct cause of death sufficient for a murder conviction.
Concluding that the dying declaration did not inspire confidence, the court held that the trial court had committed a “grave legal error” in relying on it for the conviction.
Directions to Judiciary and State Administration
In a significant “note of caution,” the bench expressed its anguish over the state of the investigation. The court observed that while the dying declaration could have been a basis for conviction, “various discrepancies involving crucial witnesses, including medical officer and government officials, severely erode its reliability.”
The High Court issued a stern directive, stating, “The trial Courts shall also oversee the actions of prosecution and investigating agencies… so that the accused may not take benefit of such lapses.”
The bench further ordered:
“The Home Department of every State Government, to formulate a procedure for taking action against all erring investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action.”
A copy of the judgment has been directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police, and all Principal District & Sessions Judges in Chhattisgarh for circulation and compliance, to “infuse seriousness in the performance of investigating and prosecuting duties” and ensure that the “guilty should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law.”
