16 Year Old Girl Was Set Ablaze During Sudden Scuffle With No Prior Bad Intention Or Planning: Allahabad High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide
The Court observed that brief and precise dying declaration naming the accused was reliable; shortness of statement itself can be a guarantee of truth.
The Allahabad High Court has altered a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC in a case where the convict set ablaze a 16-year-old girl during a sudden scuffle, and she died from burn injuries sustained, holding that the incident lacked premeditation, prior enmity, or evidence of a planned intention to cause death.
While partly allowing the appeal filed by the convict against his conviction under Sections 302, 354 and 452 IPC. The Court converted the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, acquitted him of the charge under Section 354 IPC, and directed his release, noting that he had already spent more than 18 years in jail.
A Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II observed, “…Therefore, it is clear that burn injuries were caused to the deceased by appellant with the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death. Any reasonable person by any stretch of imagination can easily come to a conclusion that burning someone alive is likely to cause death…we are of the opinion that that the incident had happened in a spur of moment, that too during scuffle with no prior bad intention or planning. In this background, when evidence is again scrutinized, the victim was immediately shifted to hospital for treatment and she ultimately died due to septicemia as a result of burn injuries. As the death caused by the appellant - convict was not a premeditated and there being no previous enmity or instances of earlier harassment, therefore the present case falls under clause (c) of Section 299 I.P.C”.
“…We have carefully gone through the entire evidence and thus are of opinion that in the present case none of clause of Section 300 I.P.C. is attracted in the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore the offence committed by the appellant - convict falls under Part - II of Section 304 I.P.C”, the Bench observed.
Advocate Abhishek Sharma appeared for the appellant and Advocate Aditya Kumar Misra appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution case alleged that the appellant entered the victim's house, molested her and set her on fire after she resisted. However, the Court found that the deceased's dying declaration, recorded by a Naib Tehsildar shortly after the incident, did not contain any allegation of molestation. Instead, the victim stated that the appellant had entered the house, engaged in a scuffle with her, and set her on fire when she resisted and raised an alarm.
Placing substantial reliance on the dying declaration, the Bench held that it was brief, precise and trustworthy. The Court observed that a short dying declaration does not lose evidentiary value merely because it lacks elaborate details and reiterated that "the shortness of the statement is itself a guarantee of its veracity".
“Generally, the dying declaration ought to be recorded in the form of questions-answers but if a dying declaration is not elaborate but consists of only a few sentences and is in the actual words of the maker the mere fact that it is not in questions-answer form cannot be a ground against its acceptability or reliability…The percentage of burns marks on the deceased is not a determinative factor in assessing the credibility of a dying declaration, as mental fitness depends on various factors such as the nature and impact of injuries, not solely on the extent of physical harm…”, the Bench noted.
“…The absence of elaborate detail does not diminish its legal sanctity. Whenever there is a brief dying declaration it is indictive of the fact that it is neither the result of tutoring nor prompting. The shortness of the statement is itself a guarantee of its veracity”, further said.
The Court further noted that the victim's statement was recorded after obtaining medical certification regarding her fitness and there was no indication of tutoring, prompting or fabrication.
“…It is crystal clear that death of deceased was a homicidal death. Now the question remains that whether homicidal death of the deceased would fall within the four corners of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case, there is no such evidence that appellant - convict was previously known to the deceased or her family members. Therefore, it is not a case of any previous enmity or earlier harassment. The deceased in her dying declaration has not stated any allegation of her molestation at the hands of appellant - convict. The victim has clearly stated that the appellant - convict was scuffling with her. The victim has stated that when she resisted and screamed, then appellant - convict set her on fire. The victim has not stated that how she was set on fire i.e. whether any kerosene oil or any other inflammable material was poured upon her or not”, the Bench categorically noted.
While affirming that the appellant was responsible for causing the burn injuries, the Bench held that the circumstances showed the incident occurred in the spur of the moment during a scuffle. The victim died seven days later due to septicemia resulting from burn injuries.
Cause Title: Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:120629-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Abhishek Sharma, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Ram Ashish Pandey, Advocates.
Respondent: Aditya Kumar Misra, Aditya Kumar Tripathi, Govt. Advocates.