1 2025:CGHC:8271-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3513 of 2024 State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus Rakesh Mahdeva S/o Reshamlal Mhadeva, Aged About 31 Years R/o Lidri, Police Station - Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18 .02.2025 1. By way of present petition filed under Section 419 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) the State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G) in Session Trial No. 86 of 2021, by which the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 294 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.18 17:55:14 +0530 2 2. I.A. No. No. 01 of 2024, is an application for condonation of delay of 562 days in filing the instant petition for leave to appeal. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the night of the incident, 09.09.2020, the deceased, Satyavati Mahdeva, was at home, while her husband, the accused/respondent, had gone to the village to drink. Upon returning, the accused began harassing their young child. When the deceased intervened to stop him, the accused started abusing, physically assaulted and strangled her. He threatened to kill her by pouring kerosene from a gallon, but deceased fled to her in-laws house. She then went to her sister-in-law's house, where she was consoled. Later, while on her way to the bathing tank, the accused arrived and set her on fire with a matchstick. She was then taken to CIMS Hospital in Bilaspur by her brother-in-law and others, and was referred to BTRC Hospital for further treatment. Despite efforts, she succumbed to her injuries from the burns. Upon receiving information about the burning, the Takhatpur Police Station went to the hospital and registered a rural complaint (Dehati Nalisi) vide Ex.P/9. A First Information Report (Ex.P/10) was registered. During the investigation, the dying declaration of the deceased, Satyavati Mahdeva, was recorded (Ex.P/15). A spot map of the crime scene was prepared (Ex.P/19). Evidence seized from the scene included the deceased's burnt clothes, hair, a matchstick, matchstick stick, and a plastic kerosene gallon (Ex.P/5). The memorandum statement (Ex.P/4) of the accused was recorded. A postmortem was conducted and report is (Ex.P/13). The seized items were sent to the regional forensic science 3 laboratory for analysis. Statements of witnesses were recorded, and after completing the necessary proceedings, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 307, and 302 of the IPC before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused/respondent and the trial was commenced. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent / accused from the offences for which he has been charged with by giving him the benefit of doubt. 6. Learned State counsel submits that the respondent/accused is the husband of the deceased, who was hospitalized on 10.09.2020, suffering from 60% burn. The cause of death, as determined by the postmortem examination, was attributed to septicemia. The victim succumbed to her injuries on 09.09.2020, around 5.30 p.m. The learned trial Court, however, failed to properly consider key evidence, including the victim’s dying declaration (Ex.P/15) and medical report which are duty supported with corroborative evidence. The prosecution has ensure proper procedures, including timely recording of the victim’s statement and issuing notices to the concerned Magistrate, however, the learned trial Court undermines the credibility of the dying declaration finding that the statement, recorded 4th day after the incident i.e. on 14.10.2020, but should have been scrutinized more rigorously, particularly she died on 17.10.2020. He also submits that the learned trial Court also made incorrect assumptions about the presence of the victim’s brother, Satya Kosle (PW-4) at the hospital and the lack of his statement about the dying declaration. The learned trial Court improperly relied on this assumption without concrete evidence, rendering the finding unsustainable. Additionally, the learned 4 trial Court rejected the thumb impression of the deceased as part of the evidence, a decision that was also found to be legally unjustifiable. He would submit that the learned trial Court ought to have consider that the case was properly investigate as the statement of the deceased recorded on 14.09.2020, when the FIR dated 14.09.2020 was registered. In the FIR, the deceased clearly explained and alleged that the respondent/accused poured kerosene oil on her. However, the learned trial Court did not find this allegation to be substantiated based on the evidence presented, including the medical evidence and witnesses statements. 7. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the learned trial Court erred in its judgment by failing to consider the statements of key witnesses, particularly, Satya Kosle (PW-4), Dr. Chaturbhuj Mishra (PW- 10), Leela Kishan (PW-7) and Nayab Tehsildar, Smt. Prakriti Dhruv (PW- 11). The learned trial Court only focused on the statement of Dr. Shashikant Sahu (PW-1), who stated that the deceased was not a fit state of mind to give statement, whereas as per the memo of the hospital Burn and Trauma Research Centre where deceased was taken and Doctor had issued a medical fitness certificate that deceased was fit to give her statement. Moreover, Nayab Tehsildar Smt. Prakriti Dhruv (PW-11), who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased had denied the suggestion that the deceased was not fit to give the dying declaration. Further, Dr. Chaturbhuj Mishra (PW-10) has stated that the deceased had received 60 to 65% burn injuries and he denied the suggestion that person who had received 60 to 65% burn injuries is not able to give clear statement. Hence, without considering the dying declaration (Ex.P/15 of 5 the deceased and the testimonies of witnesses, namely, Satya Kosle (PW-4), Dr. Chaturbhuj Mishra (PW-10), Leela Kishan (PW-7) and Nayab Tehsildar, Smt. Prakriti Dhruv (PW-11), the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused by giving them benefit of doubt, which is perverse and contrary to the law and as such, the leave to appeal deserves to be granted. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the present is a fit case where application under Section 419 of the BNSS deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal under Section 419 of the BNSS is allowed. 9. OfÏce is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”. 10. The CrMP is disposed off accordingly. 11. The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted. 12. Let a bailable warrant of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- be issued against the respondent / accused for his presence before this Court on 24.03.2025. 13. Paper-book has already been prepared in accordance with the High Court Rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan