1 2025:CGHC:25750-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 515 of 2024 1 - Mukesh Karse S/o Mewalal Karse Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Near Karbala Chowk, Indira Nagar Dongargarh, Ps Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Officer Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 19/06/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26/11/2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 03/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.06.20 17:20:45 +0530 2 Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01/03/2017, Head Constable Chunnilal received a memo from Government Hospital, Dongargarh to the effect that a woman, Smt. Sonu Karse, wife of Mukesh Karse, aged 30 years, resident of Indira Nagar, Dongargarh, has been brought to the hospital for treatment in 40 -50 percent burnt condition. The above information was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha No. 45 dated 01.03.2017. As the woman condition was critical, she was referred to Medical College Hospital, Rajnandgaon for intensive care where the Victim dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in which she told that her husband Mukesh Karse (the appellant) with the intention of killing her, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze on 01.03.2017 at 3.30 pm. On the basis of hospital examination memo, treatment report and dying statement, a case was registered under section 307 of Indian Penal Code against accused and investigation was taken up. During the investigation, statement of the victim was recorded at Mehkara Hospital, Raipur, wherein she stated that due to dowry demand, the appellant, after pouring kerosene upon her, set her on fire. Subsequently, offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were added and the appellant was arrested on 04/03/2017. 3 On 21/03/2017 during the treatment, the Victim died (henceforth ‘the Deceased) at Raipur Hospital. Subsequently, Merg was registered and offence under Section 304-B and Section 302 of the IPC were added. Statement of the witnesses and mother, father and brother of the Deceased were recorded, who in their statement has stated that due to dowry demand of Motorcyle, the appellant, after pouring kerosene upon the Deceased, set her on fire, due to which, the Deceased died. Burnt clothes, match stick and other articles were sent for chemical examination, Raipur. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. 3. After committal of the case to the sessions Court, the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. 4 defence witnesses were examined by the appellant in his support. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and pleaded false implication in the matter. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no direct evidence against the accused/appellant. Due explanation has been offered by the appellant in his 313 statement, however, the same has not been considered. The conviction is based on dying declaration. He would 4 submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of crime , therefore, he may be acquitted for the charges by setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and went through the dying declaration (Ex.P/21) of the Deceased and submit that she has categorically stated that due to dowry, the appellant after pouring kerosene upon her, set her on fire. Therefore, there was no scope left to raise any doubt and the conviction awarded by the learned trial Court is well merited, which does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. It is an admitted position that the appellant and the Deceased, were husband and wife and within short span of 2 years of her marriage, the deceased sustained burn injuries and died in the hospital during her treatment on 21/03/2017. 8. Gomati Karse (PW2) is the co-sister (Bhabhi) of the deceased. She deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 01/03/2017, there was quarrel going on between the appellant and the Deceased and subsequently, the same was pacified. Thereafter, she went to work and after returning from there, she was doing her household work. After some time, she saw that the Deceased was burning and crowd was surrounding there. She ran to the spot and extinguished the fire. The deceased was sent to 5 the hospital. In the hospital, she asked the Deceased, how she sustained burn injuries then she told that the appellant set her on fire. 9. Ishwar Karse (PW 5) has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident, he came back from work at about 2:30-3:00 pm and was resting at home after having lunch. When he heard some noise from outside. He went out and saw that the Deceased was burning and his younger brother Vinod and his wife Neelu were extinguishing the fire. 10. Rajshri (PW4) in her deposition has stated that on the date of incident, she came back from her duty and was taking rest. Subsequently, Nilu Karse came to her and told her that the Deceased has been burning. Thereafter, she came out of the house and saw that the Deceased was burning. She further stated that the appellant himself took the deceased to the hospital for treatment. 11. Nilum Karse (PW9) has also stated in similar fashion. She has categorically stated that on the date of incident she was inside her room along with her husband Vinod and after listening the knock on the door, she came out and saw that the Deceased was burning. They tried to extinguish the fire and thereafter, the ambulance was called. 12. Raju Dakha (PW10) also stated that on the date of incident, at around 2-2.30 p.m., after getting information that the Deceased is burning, he he came out of his house and saw that the Deceased was burning and subsequently, she was taken to the hospital. 13. Laxmi Kanvare (PW22), mother of the Deceased has deposed that on the date of incident, Nilu Karse called to Shravan Mongre and 6 intimated that the Deceased has sustained burnt injuries. She informed this to her sister, Ganga and asked her to reach to the house of the deceased. 14. From the above statement of these witnesses, it is apparent that they all have saw the Deceased burning in front of the house of the appellant. They also extinguished the fire and sent the Deceased to the hospital for treatment. 15. Dr. Suchita Shrivastava (PW7) has deposed in her statement that on 01/03/2017, the Deceased was brought before her in burnt condition of about 40-50 percent. On examining the victim's body, she found that the upper layer of the skin was found burnt. The upper layer of the skin on the face, neck, chest, back and both hands was burnt. She gave the opinion that the victim had superficial burns which were 50 to 60 percent burnt due to kerosene. After giving first aid to the victim, she was referred to the Medical College Rajnandgaon Burn Unit Specialist for treatment. Her report is Ex.P. 04. 16. Dr. M. Nirala (PW11) in his deposition has deposed that he has conducted the postmortem of the Deceased. He stated as under:- External examination- On external examination of the dead body he found that the dead body was of a normal height woman wrapped in a black and grey coloured bed sheet, white hospital bandages were tied on the chest, upper abdomen, back and both upper limbs of the deceased, the body was cold, there was post mortem stiffness in the body, both eyes were closed, mouth was closed and the tongue was inside the mouth. 7 Description of injuries- Superficial wounds with reddish redness, percentage of burn injuries are as follows- (a) Face and neck 6%, (b)- Chest and abdomen 12%, (c) Right upper limb 8%, (d)- Left upper limb 8%. (e) Back 12%. (f) Right lower limb 0%, (g) Left lower limb 0% (h) Genitals 0%, total 46%. White coloured slough and green coloured pus pockets were present in the back, upper chest and both arms of the deceased. Internal examination- Skull, cranium, vertebrae and membranes intact. The brain was intact and swollen. The membranes, ribs, soft tissues, throat and windpipe were intact and healthy, both lungs were intact and swollen, pericardium, heart and heart vessels were intact, right ventricle had blood and blood clot, diaphragm, intestinal membrane, mouth and pharynx were intact and healthy, 100 ml of black coloured fluid was present in the stomach, small and large intestines were filled with gas and stool, liver, spleen and both kidneys were intact and swollen, bladder was intact and empty, internal and external genitals were intact and healthy. Opinion – In his opinion, the deceased died due to cardiac and respiratory failure caused by burn injuries and complications arising thereof. 17. From the above evidence, it is apparent that the Deceased, initially was brought in the hospital in burnt condition of 40-50% and subsequently, she died during the course of treatment. 18. This brings us to the question whether the Deceased burned herself or any body burned her?. 8 19. Gomati Karse (PW2) in her deposition has stated that in the hospital when she asked the Deceased as to how she sustained burn injuries, in reply, the Deceased had told her that the appellant had set her on fire. 20. Preeti Larokar (PW16), Nayab Tehsildar in her deposition has stated that she has recorded the dying declaration of the Deceased after finding her fully fit state of mind by the doctor. In the statement the deceased stated that she had a fight with her husband; he used to abuse her filthy words; it has been one year since their marriage and they have no children. When asked how this happened, she said that there was a fight, the husband hit her with a broom, thereafter he poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire with a matchstick and thereafter he ran away, after the fire started. The Dying declaration is Ex.P/20. 21. It is the well settled principal of law that once the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration is truthful, it does not need any corroboration and conviction is permissible solely on the basis of dying declaration. 22. It is also the trite law that there is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying delcaration can not be acted upon without corroboration. If the Court is satisfied that the Dying Declaration and voluntarily, it can based conviction on it without corroboration. (See: Kalawati v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 4 SCC 37). 23. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Others, reported in AIR 1985 SC 416, the Supreme Court held that it is settled that, as a matter of law, a dying declaration can be acted upon without 9 corroboration. The Supreme Court further observed that there is not even a rule of prudence which has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. The primary effort of the Court has to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true. If it is, no question of corroboration arises. It is only if the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are not clear of convincing that the Court may, for its assurance, look for corroboration to the dying declaration. 24. Bare perusal of the statement of the witnesses, it is quite apparent that Preeti Larokar (PW16), Nayab Tehsildar has recorded the dying declaration of the Deceased in a fit state of mind after doctor consent. the Deceased in her dying declaration (Ex.P/20) has clearly stated that there was quarrel between the appellant and her and subsequently, he, after pouring her kerosene, set her on fire. This fact has also been corroborated by the Gomati (PW2), who has also stated that when she asked the Deceased about the incident, she stated that the appellant set her on fire after pouring kerosene. 25. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. It is stated that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the remaining sentence. 27. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned 10 forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 28. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri