Citation : 2001 Local Law (CG) 33
The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed the life imprisonment awarded to Ram Bai, convicted for the murder of her sister-in-law, Vidya Bai, by setting her ablaze in 1998. Justice R.S. Garg dismissed the appeal, concluding that the prosecution’s case was supported by consistent dying declarations, credible witnesses, and medical evidence.
The case arose from a tragic domestic dispute in Raipur. On October 8, 1998, the deceased, Vidya Bai, suffered severe burn injuries when her sister-in-law, Ram Bai, allegedly poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire while she was cooking. Her husband, Balram, who tried to rescue her, sustained minor burns. Vidya Bai succumbed to her injuries five days later.
During her treatment, the police recorded three separate dying declarations—each consistently identifying Ram Bai as the assailant. These statements, recorded by the investigating officer, a magistrate, and other witnesses, were certified by doctors as having been made while the victim was mentally fit.
The defense claimed that the incident was accidental, arguing that the deceased’s mother had influenced her statements. They relied on forensic opinion suggesting that unburnt soles might indicate suicide. However, the court found these arguments unconvincing, holding that the forensic opinion could not override the clear and corroborated testimony on record.
Justice Garg noted that “the dying declarations were recorded properly, after medical certification of fitness, and carry full evidentiary value.” The court dismissed suggestions of tutoring, pointing out that even the deceased’s husband, who had tried to protect the accused, signed one of the declarations without objection.
The court also rejected the defense’s reliance on a forensic expert’s report prepared two years after the incident, calling it speculative and unsupported by factual conditions at the time.
Quoting landmark Supreme Court rulings on dying declarations, including Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay and State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, the judge emphasized that a conviction can rest solely on a reliable and voluntary dying declaration.
After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond doubt that the accused deliberately poured kerosene and set her sister-in-law on fire following repeated domestic quarrels.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court, Raipur. The appeal was dismissed.
Case Details : Criminal Appeal No. 1873 of 2000, Ram Bai vs. State of M.P. now Chhattisgarh (20.04.2001)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shri B.P. Sharma, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 302; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 307
Cases Referred:
Bhagatram Patidar and others v. State of M.P., 1990 MPLJ 770; State of U.P. v. Baburam, JT 2000 (4) SC 456, 2000(2) C.Cr.J. (SC) 697; Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, 1958 Cr.LJ 106 (SC); Kishanlal Seth v. Jagan Nath, AIR 1990 SC 1357; Habile Usman v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1181; State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, AIR 1985 SC 416; K.R. Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1976 SC 1994, (1976) 3 SCC 618; Paparambaka Rosamma and others v. State of A.P., 1999 (4) Crimes 150 (SC); Rambai v. State of M.P., 1990 JLJ 678; Rajesh v. State of M.P., 1997 (1) MPLJ 136; Ramadhar v. State of M.P., 1999(II) MPJR 317; Bhagwandas v. State of M.P., 1999 (I) MPLJ 373; Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P., 1999 (4) Crimes 90 (SC); Ranchod v. State of M.P., 1991 JLJ 123
======
आपराधिक मामला – मरने से पहले दिए गए बयान (Dying Declaration) – भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 1872 की धारा 32 तथा भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 की धाराएँ 302 और 307
अपीलकर्ता (रामबाई) मृतका विद्या बाई की जिठानी थी। दोनों के बीच पारिवारिक विवाद और आपसी मनमुटाव था। अभियोजन के अनुसार, अपीलकर्ता ने मृतका पर मिट्टी का तेल डालकर आग लगा दी, जिससे वह गंभीर रूप से झुलस गई। प्रारंभ में पुलिस ने मामला धारा 307 आईपीसी (हत्या का प्रयास) के अंतर्गत दर्ज किया, परंतु उपचार के दौरान मृतका की मृत्यु हो जाने पर अपराध को धारा 302 आईपीसी (हत्या) में परिवर्तित किया गया।
सत्र न्यायालय, रायपुर ने साक्ष्यों के आधार पर अपीलकर्ता को धारा 302 आईपीसी के तहत दोषी ठहराते हुए आजीवन कारावास की सजा सुनाई। इस आदेश को अपील में चुनौती दी गई।
उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय: छत्तीसगढ़ उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि इस मामले में दोषसिद्धि मृतका के मरने से पहले दिए गए बयान (Dying Declaration) पर आधारित है, जो मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा उस समय दर्ज किया गया जब मृतका मानसिक रूप से पूरी तरह स्वस्थ और होश में थी। डॉक्टर ने भी मृतका की मानसिक स्थिति को “फिट” प्रमाणित किया था।
अपीलकर्ता यह साबित करने में असफल रही कि बयान दर्ज करने की प्रक्रिया में कोई अनियमितता हुई या मृतका पर किसी का दबाव था। मृतका के पति ने भी यह बयान सही बताया और अन्य अभियोजन साक्षियों ने भी इसकी पुष्टि की।
न्यायालय ने माना कि मरने से पहले का यह बयान विश्वसनीय, स्वैच्छिक और प्रमाणिक है। इसलिए सत्र न्यायालय द्वारा दिया गया दोषसिद्धि आदेश और आजीवन कारावास की सजा पूर्णतः उचित है।
परिणाम: अपील निरस्त की गई। सजा बरकरार रखी गई।
निर्णय: रामबाई बनाम राज्य, छत्तीसगढ़ उच्च न्यायालय, न्यायमूर्ति आर.एस. गर्ग — आपराधिक अपील खारिज।
