Citation : 2001 Local Law (CG) 33
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Ram Bai, who was found guilty of killing her sister-in-law, Vidya Bai, by setting her on fire during a domestic quarrel in 1998.
Justice R.S. Garg, delivering the judgment, dismissed the appeal filed by Ram Bai against the Sessions Court’s verdict from 2000, which had sentenced her to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case dates back to October 8, 1998, when a domestic dispute in a Raipur household turned tragic. According to the prosecution, Ram Bai poured kerosene oil on her sister-in-law, Vidya Bai, while she was cooking and set her ablaze. Vidya Bai sustained 85 percent burn injuries and later succumbed at the hospital on October 13, 1998.
Her husband, Balram, who tried to rescue her, suffered minor burns. Multiple dying declarations recorded before police and a magistrate consistently named Ram Bai as the attacker. Doctors confirmed that the victim was conscious and in a fit mental state when she gave her statements.
The defense argued that the fire was accidental and that the dying declarations were unreliable, claiming the victim was influenced by her mother to falsely implicate the accused. However, the court rejected these claims, noting that the declarations were consistent, recorded properly, and supported by medical and witness evidence.
Justice Garg emphasized that there was no evidence of tutoring or fabrication and found the defense witnesses, including the victim’s husband, unreliable due to inconsistencies and unnatural conduct. The court also dismissed a forensic expert’s late opinion, finding it speculative and unsupported by facts.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that a truthful and voluntary dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction if found reliable.
“The dying declarations recorded in this case were genuine and made when the deceased was in a fit mental condition,” Justice Garg observed, affirming the trial court’s findings.
With this ruling, the High Court confirmed Ram Bai’s conviction and life sentence, bringing closure to a case that revolved around domestic conflict, forensic debate, and the critical weight of a dying declaration in criminal law.
Case Details : Criminal Appeal No. 1873/2000, Ram Bai vs. State of M.P. (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
======
अपराध – मृत्युपूर्व बयान (Dying Declaration) – भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम, 1872 की धारा 32 तथा भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 की धाराएँ 302 और 307 के अंतर्गत मामला।
अपीलकर्ता (रामबाई) मृतका की जेठानी थी। मृतका और अपीलकर्ता के बीच आपसी संबंध अच्छे नहीं थे। आरोप था कि अपीलकर्ता ने मृतका पर मिट्टी का तेल डालकर उसे आग के हवाले कर दिया, जिससे उसकी मृत्यु हो गई। प्रारंभ में अपराध धारा 307 आईपीसी (हत्या का प्रयास) के तहत दर्ज किया गया था, लेकिन मृतका के उपचार के दौरान मृत्यु हो जाने पर अपराध को धारा 302 आईपीसी (हत्या) में परिवर्तित किया गया। ट्रायल कोर्ट ने अपीलकर्ता को धारा 302 आईपीसी के तहत दोषी ठहराया और आजीवन कारावास की सजा सुनाई। इस निर्णय के विरुद्ध अपील प्रस्तुत की गई।
न्यायालय का निर्णय: वर्तमान मामले में दोषसिद्धि मृतका के मृत्युपूर्व बयान (Dying Declaration) के आधार पर की गई थी। अभिलेखों से स्पष्ट था कि मृतका का बयान मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा तब दर्ज किया गया जब वह पूर्णतः होश और समझ की स्थिति में थी। अपीलकर्ता यह सिद्ध नहीं कर सकी कि बयान दर्ज करने में कोई प्रक्रिया संबंधी त्रुटि हुई थी।
मृतका के पति सहित अन्य अभियोजन साक्षियों ने भी इस मृत्युपूर्व बयान की पुष्टि की। अपीलकर्ता अभियोजन साक्षियों के कथनों को खंडित करने में असफल रही। अतः न्यायालय ने पाया कि ट्रायल कोर्ट द्वारा पारित दोषसिद्धि उचित है। परिणामस्वरूप, अपील निरस्त की गई और सजा बरकरार रखी गई।
