Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Chhattisgarh High Court
Once A Dying Declaration Is Found To Be Authentic And Inspiring Confidence, It Can Be Sole Basis Of Conviction: Chhattisgarh High Court Affirms Life Sentence In Wife-Burning Case
|The Court said the Executive Magistrate’s testimony was trustworthy and there was no reason to doubt the deceased’s statement recorded in the presence of a doctor.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man and his mother who were found guilty of burning the man’s wife to death. The Court rejected their appeal, holding that the dying declaration of the deceased was true and voluntary, and that it inspired the confidence of the Court.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “Our Indian Law also recognizes this fact that “a dying man seldom lies” or in other words “truth sits upon the lips of a dying man”. The relevance or this very fact, is an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence...Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is famously referred to as the “dying declaration” section, although the said phrase itself does not find mention under the Evidence Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the scope and ambit of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, particularly, Section 32(1) on various occasions…”
The Court added, “…from perusal of the dying declaration, it is apparently clear that there is signature of the said Doctor which is indicative of the fact that he was present when the dying declaration was recorded and he had given her opinion that the deceased was fit to give her dying declaration. “
Advocate Ashok Kumar Swarnakar appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Shakib Ahmed represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The case arose from the death of a woman who had sustained burn injuries allegedly caused by her husband and mother-in-law, the Appellants herein.The deceased had informed her family and the Executive Magistrate during treatment that she was set ablaze after being harassed for dowry and beaten. She later succumbed to her injuries. An FIR was lodged, and a charge sheet was filed after investigation.
The Trial Court convicted both Appellants under Sections 302 and 34 IPC while acquitting them under Section 304B IPC. The conviction was based substantially on the dying declaration, eyewitness statements, and forensic evidence.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court examined the evidentiary value of dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. Referring to judicial precedent, the Bench observed that a dying declaration is a relevant fact admissible in evidence and can form the sole basis of conviction if it is found to be true and voluntary.
The Court held observed, “…there are special circumstances which gives a guarantee of trustworthiness to the testimony, it is admitted even though it comes from a second-hand source. The Supreme Court emphasized on the principle enumerated in the famous legal maxim of the Law of Evidence, i.e., nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire which means a man will not meet his Maker with a lie inhis mouth. Our Indian Law also recognizes this fact that “a dying man seldom lies” or in other words “truth sits upon the lips of a dying man”. The relevance or this very fact, is an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Purshottam Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2020), where it was held that once a dying declaration passes the test of voluntariness and coherence, there is no legal bar to convict solely on its basis.
On the reliability of the dying declaration, the Court noted that the statement was recorded by an Executive Magistrate after a fitness certificate was obtained from a doctor. The Bench noted, “The statement given by the Executive Magistrate cannot be disbelieved as he is a Government Officer and has no vested interest in either of the parties. Even there is no suggestion as to why the Executive Magistrate would have deposed falsely against the appellant.”
The Court further observed, “From perusal of the dying declaration, it is apparently clear that there is signature of the said doctor which is indicative of the fact that he was present when the dying declaration was recorded and he had given her opinion that the deceased was fit to give her dying declaration.”
The Court took note of the medical and forensic evidence, including the recovery of burnt blankets, half-burnt clothing, a Sprite bottle with kerosene odour, and a matchbox from the place of incident, and that the FSL report confirmed the presence of kerosene on the seized articles. The Bench found that this recovery corroborated the version given by the deceased.
The Court further rejected the claim that the deceased woman had committed suicide based on testimony from prosecution witnesses and the deceased’s consistent statement implicating the accused.
The Court held, “This Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same needs no interference.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence awarded to the Accused.
Cause Title: Dhaneshwar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:27197-DB)
Click here to read/download Judgment