[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Binod Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.373 of 2003
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2003 and Order of
sentence dated 20.01.2003 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions
Judge, Dumka in S.C. No.212 of 2001]
------
Binod Mandal, son of Sitaram Mandal, resident of village-Geruwa
Marani, P.S.-Jama, Dist.-Dumka
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate
Mr. Amandeep, Advocate
Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Tushar, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 17/02/2026 Pronounce On 26 /02/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. appearing
for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the above
named sole appellant for setting aside the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 17.01.2003 and 20.01.2003
respectively for the offence under section 302 of IPC passed by
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in S.C. No.212
of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held
guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is based on fardbayan
of Lakhia Devi, wife of Binod Mandal (present appellant)
recorded by A.S.I., Nokha Lal Yadav of Palajori P.S. on
28.05.2000 at 16:00 hours at State Dispensary, Palajori stating
inter alia that on 28.05.2000 in the morning, the informant's
husband, Binod Mandal sprinkled kerosene oil on her body
and set her on ablaze, when she started crying, her husband
fled away from the house. The reason behind the occurrence is
that her husband was saying that he will solemnize second
marriage with another girl. Therefore, the informant went to
her parental home. It is further alleged that about 8 days ago,
she had returned from her parental home to her matrimonial
home along with her husband, Binod Mandal. It is further
alleged that at the time of occurrence, except her husband,
none of the family members were present. The informant
(since deceased) has further stated that except her husband no
other family members are responsible for this occurrence. The
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
fardbayan (Ext.2) was also signed by the father-in-law of the
injured victim, namely, Sita Ram Mandal (P.W.6).
4. On the basis of above fardbayan of the injured victim, Palajori
P.S. Case No.57 of 2000 dated 28.05.2000 was registered for the
offences under sections 324/307 of IPC. In course of treatment,
Lakhia Devi (informant) died at Sadar Hospital, Dumka, hence
section 302 of IPC was added in this case. After conclusion of
investigation, the investigating officer of the case has
submitted charge-sheet against above named appellant for the
offence under section 302 of IPC. The case was committed to
the court of Sessions, where S.C. No.212 of 2001 was
registered. The accused denied the charges leveled against him
and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned
judgment and order was passed, which has been assailed in
this appeal.
Submission on behalf of the appellant
5. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the legality of
conviction of the appellant has pointed out following points:-
(i) The appellant is innocent and the deceased had sustained
extensive burn injuries, which was due to accidental fire
occurred in absence of the appellant from his house. (ii) The
appellant is an ice-cream seller and at the time of occurrence,
he had gone to sell ice-cream and when he returned at the
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
night then he came to know about the burn injuries sustained
by his wife. In the next day, his wife died in course of
treatment. (iii) Learned counsel further submits that altogether
7 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution but
none of the witnesses are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It
has been further submitted that P.W.1, Katki Mandal is the
father of the deceased and other witnesses of the facts namely,
P.W.2-Urmila Devi, P.W.3-Dhodhiya Devi, P.W.6 Sita Ram
Mandal and P.W.7-Badri Mandal are also not eye-witnesses of
the occurrence. (iv)Learned trial court has committed serious
illegality while basing the conviction of the appellant on
alleged dying declaration (fardbayan) of the deceased, while she
was admitted to State Dispensary at Palajori. (v) The fardbayan
of the deceased, Lakhia Devi is alleged to be signed by Dr. P.K.
Daradhiyar, who has not been examined by the prosecution to
prove about mental and physical condition of the informant to
be in a fit condition to speak anything in case of 90% burn
injuries. As such, no examination of Dr. P.K. Daradhiyar and
absence of any medical certificate about the mental and
physical condition of the informant to speak anything is fatal
to the prosecution. (vi) Neither any doctor from State
Dispensary nor from Sadar Hospital, Dumka, who were
engaged in treatment of the informant (deceased), have been
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
examined in this case to state that the deceased was in a
position of talk, which makes the fardbayan of the informant
totally unreliable and worthless. (vii) No motive for
commission of murder of his own wife has been attributed and
proved against the appellant and there are no other
circumstances that the appellant had any love-affairs with any
other girl or any kind of grudge or enmity with his wife to
drive him to commit murder of his beloved wife. (viii) Learned
trial court has also failed to consider that there are
overwhelming circumstantial evidences to establish that at the
time of occurrence, the appellant was not present in the house
rather he has gone to sale ice-cream.
In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the conviction and sentence of the
appellant is absolutely illegal and based upon inadmissible
evidence, which is liable to be set aside and the appellant
deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him.
Accordingly, this appeal may be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the
following reported judgments:-
(i) Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. Vs. State of
A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695.
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
(ii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Wakteng (2007) 14 SCC
Submission on behalf of the State
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has
vehemently controverted the aforesaid points of argument
raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that dying
declaration of the deceased in the shape of her fardbayan was
recorded by A.S.I., Nokhelal Yadav at State Dispensary,
Palajori at the time of first aid in presence of the conducting
doctor as well as father-in-law of the deceased. In the next day
morning, the father-in-law of the deceased, Sita Ram Mandal
(P.W.6) became apprehensive and his fardbayan was recorded
by another S.I. Sanjay Kumar Singh with a view to save his son
from legal consequences which could be treated as a statement
under section 161 of Cr.P.C. As such, it was not the basis of
FIR. Admittedly, the deceased died on next day at about 11:30
am. Although, there were no eye-witnesses of the occurrence
but there are clinching circumstantial evidences showing tense
relationship between husband and wife so that the deceased
went to her parental home and just eight days prior to the
occurrence, she was brought to her matrimonial home by her
husband. The burn injuries sustained by the deceased is also
self-explanatory that only upper body was found extensively
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
burnt, which clearly indicates that it was not an accidental fire.
The plea of alibi taken by the appellant was also not proved by
any cogent and reliable evidence. The dying declaration of the
deceased is free from any embellishment and wholly true and
voluntary. Learned trial court has very wisely analyzed the
incriminating circumstances available on record in the light of
dying declaration made by the deceased and rightly concluded
about guilt of the appellant. There is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned judgment and order calling for any
interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
8. The sole point for determination in this appeal is "as to
whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of
the appellant suffers from any error of law and based beyond
the weight of evidence available on record, which requires any
interference in this appeal?"
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
9. Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the above point, we have
to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record.
10. It appears that altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution to substantiate the charge leveled against the
accused/appellant.
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
P.W.1-Katki Mandal is the father of the deceased.
According to his evidence, about 1 ½ years ago in the month of
Baishakh at about 6:00 am, while he was in the village
Sainthiya, he was informed by his brother, Badri Mandal
(P.W.7) about setting ablaze of his daughter by his son-in-law,
Binod Mandal. He has stated nothing else rather admits
cordial relationship between his daughter and his son-in-law.
P.W.2-Urmila Devi is a local villager of the place of
occurrence. She has been turned hostile and expressed
complete ignorance from the occurrence. Her attention has
been drawn towards the statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C.
recorded by the police which she has denied that she has
stated before police that "after hearing hulla, she came out from
the house and saw Lakhia Devi rushing towards outside of her house
raising alarm that her husband has tied her both hands and set on fire
by sprinkling kerosene oil over her body. She also attempted to
extinguish the fire."
In her cross-examination by the defence, she admits
that she heard hulla in the village that wife of Binod Mandal
has been burnt and family members were weeping and Lakhia
Devi was sent to hospital, where she died.
P.W.3- Dhodhiya Devi is also a local villager of the
place of occurrence. According to her evidence, on the date of
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
occurrence, it was a summer season and morning time. While,
this witness was working in her house, she heard hullah and
went towards the street, where she saw the wife of Binod
Mandal has caught fire and she became unconscious. She has
stated nothing else. This witness has also been declared hostile
by the prosecution and her attention has been drawn towards
statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated
that the wife of Binod Mandal was saying that her husband
has set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil over her body,
which she has denied.
P.W.6-Sita Ram Mandal is father-in-law of the
deceased. According to his evidence, on the date and time of
occurrence, he was working at the field. Meanwhile, his
younger son aged about 6 years came to the field and informed
that his sister-in-law has caught fire then he went to his home
and saw that wife of Binod Mandal was lying unconscious.
This witness brought her to State Dispensary, Palajori
thereafter to Sadar Hospital, Dumka but she died in course of
treatment.
This witness has proved his signature as Ext.8 over the
fardbayan of the deceased. He has expressed his ignorance as to
whether his fardbayan was taken by police officer of Dumka,
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
Police Station. He has also proved the signature on inquest
report of the deceased as Ext.8/1.
This witness has also been declared hostile by the
prosecution to the extent that he has stated before the police
that his son, Binod Mandal after tying both hands of his wife
sprinkled kerosene oil on her neck and set on fire so that she
has sustained severe burn injuries.
In his cross-examination by defence, he has stated that
his son, Binod Mandal proceeded from the house prior to his
going to field for work and just after receiving the information
of burn injury to his daughter-in-law, he brought her to
Palajori, State Dispensary but she did not regain
consciousness. This witness further admits that his son was
informed then he returned at about 12:00 pm.
P.W.7-Badri Mandal is uncle of the deceased and the
brother of P.W.1. He has stated that the occurrence happened
two and half years ago from his deposition. He came to know
from a boy of matrimonial village of his niece that she has
sustained burn injuries and was admitted to Palajori hospital.
This witness went to Palajori hospital and saw that his niece
was completely burnt and groaning from severe pain and told
to this witness that her husband, Binod Mandal after tying her
both hands and gagging her mouth by clothes put on her
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
kerosene oil and set her on fire. She also told that the incident
has been told by her to the police. He further deposed that
from the Palajori hospital, the injured was brought to Dumka,
Sadar Hospital where she died at about 11:30 pm in the night.
In his cross-examination, he reiterates that when he
reached at Palajori hospital, his niece was conscious but
groaning due to pain. He stayed at hospital at about 15
minutes, thereafter she was brought to Sadar Hospital, Dumka
along with her father-in-law, Sitaram Mandal. He himself has
not informed about the incident at the police station because
the statement of his niece was already recorded by Palajori
police.
P.W.4- Dr. Ramesh Prasad Verma has conducted
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 29.05.2000 and
found following anti-mortem injuries on her body:
(i) Extensive deep burnt over the whole of the body
except both lower extremities. The total degree of
burnt was 90 %.
Opinion:-
The cause of death has been opined due to shock and
cardio/respiratory failure as a result of extensive deep burn
injuries mentioned above. Time elapsed since death within 24
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
hours. He has proved post-mortem report, which has been
marked as Ext.1.
This witness admits that at the time of conducting
post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, he did not find
smell of kerosene.
P.W.5 S.I. Shailendr Kumar is Investigating Officer of
this case. According to his evidence on 28.05.2000, he was
posted at Jama Police Station. On that day, fardbayan of Lakhia
Devi was received from Palajori Police Station through
Ckaukidar 4/1 Ram Vachan Bhandari. He further states that
fardbayan of Lakhia was recorded by S.I. Nokhelal Yadav,
Palajori Police Station, which is marked as Ext.2 and there is
endorsement by A.S.I. Shiv Kumar Singh for forwarding and
registration of the case, which is marked as ext.2/1 and formal
FIR is also scribed by S.I. Shiv Kumar Singh, which is marked
as Ext.3. He further proves the injury slip issued in the
handwriting of A.S.I., Nokhelal Yadav of Palajori Police
Station, which is marked as Ext.4.
He received charge of investigation of this case and
recorded the statement of A.S.I. Nokhe Lal Yadav of Polajori
P.S., thereafter went to hospital and recorded the statement of
Dr. D.K. Verma and also obtained injury report of Lakhia Devi.
On the next day, he visited the place of occurrence, which is
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
situated at village Genua and it is allotted under Indira Awas
Yojna belonging to the accused. He did not find any specific
materials from the place of occurrence. In course of the
investigation, he recorded the statement of Sitaram Mandal,
Urmila Devi, Dhodhiya Devi, Katki Mandal and Badri Mandal.
This witness has also found that on 30.05.2000, fardbayan of
Sitaram Mandal was also forwarded from Dumka Police
Station, which was scribed by S.I. Sanjay Kumar Singh and
marked as Ext.5. He has further proved the inquest report of
the deceased prepared in presence of witnesses by S.I. Sanjay
Kumar marked as Ext.6. He again went to place of occurrence
after death of deceased and alteration of case under section 302
of IPC and seized her burnt clothes, which was wearing at the
time of occurrence. The seizure list is marked Ext.7. After
finding sufficient evidence against the accused, he submitted
charge-sheet against the appellant under section 302 of IPC.
11. The prosecution has drawn attention of this witness towards
statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witness, Urmila
Devi (P.W.2) wherein she has stated that after hearing hullah,
she came out from the house and saw that Lakhia Devi was
burning and raising alarm that her husband had tied her hands
and set her on fire. She also attempted to extinguish the fire,
which was caused by sprinkling kerosene oil. This witness
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
further states that witness, Dhodhia Devi (P.W.3) has not
stated before him that wife of Binod Mandal was saying that
her husband has set her on ablaze.
In his cross-examination, he further admits that the
burnt clothes of the deceased was seized on 01.06.2000, he has
not mentioned any mark or sign of smoke on the wall of the
house of the accused. He further admits that seized material is
lying at Malkhana of police station. He has denied the
suggestion of defence that his investigation is defective.
12. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by the defence. The accused in his statement under
section 313 of Cr.P.C. has denied the occurrence and claimed to
be innocent and also pleaded that at the time of occurrence, he
was not present in the house rather he has gone to sell ice-
cream.
13. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the
case as testified by the prosecution witnesses and also gone
through impugned judgment.
14. It appears from perusal of impugned judgment that learned
trial court has recorded clear cut findings that dying
declaration of deceased does not suffer from any infirmity
rather it is true and voluntary and free from any influence by
others. Her statement finds corroboration from the evidence of
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
her own father-in-law, Sita Ram Mandal (P.W.6), Badri Mandal
(P.W.7), uncle of the deceased and P.W.4, doctor, who has
conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased
regarding opinion about the cause of death. The statement of
injured victim was recorded at the earliest opportunity in the
presence of her father-in-law and the doctor, which was
recorded by Sub-inspector of police and that is the basis of the
FIR and there is no legal impediment to treat the FIR as dying
declaration. The deceased in her fardbayan has categorically
stated about motive behind the occurrence. The defence has
led no evidence at all to prove the plea of alibi, and the burden
of proof lies on the shoulder of the accused himself under
section 105 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the learned trial
court has held the appellant guilty for the offence under
section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his own wife by
causing burn injuries and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life.
15. We have also appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence
available on record, it is quite obvious that the basis of FIR is
fardbayan of the deceased recorded at the time when she
recently sustained burnt injuries and was brought to State
Dispensary at Palajori. It is a very concise and brief statement
containing the relevant material and not a detailed statement.
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
The statement of the victim (injured), who subsequently
succumbed to her burn injuries clearly goes to shows that in
the morning, her husband sprinkled kerosene oil on her body
and set her on fire. She started raising alarm and also rushed
towards outside of the house. The motive behind the
occurrence is that her husband was saying to her that he will
solemnize second marriage due to that reason, she went to her
parental home. She further states that about 8 days ago, she
was brought from her parental home by her husband to her
matrimonial home. She further states that at the time of
occurrence, no one was present in the house. There is no role of
her mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law in this
occurrence. Her above statement was recorded in presence of
father-in-law, Sita Ram Mandal (P.W.6), medical officer of
Government Hospital, Dr. P.K. Daradahiya and recorded by
S.I., Nokhelal Yadav. This fardbayan bears thumb impression of
the informant, signature of her father-in-law, who has also
admitted his signature and proved it as Ext.8 and the doctor of
Government State Dispensary, Palajori (PHC)
16. The fardbayan of the deceased, who died on the next day in the
night after making her statement, is a brief statement
containing the genesis and manner of occurrence along with
motive of the accused to eliminate her. This document was
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
never challenged or objected by the accused at any point of
time. We also find another fardbayan of father of the accused,
Sita Ram Mandal, which was later on received by the I.O. from
Dumka Police Station, which may be treated as statement
under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the said Sita Ram Mandal.
17. Now, we have to consider as to dying declaration of the
deceased suffers from any embellishment, tutored or for any
other reasons not fit to be take into consideration.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis
against credibility of dying declaration made in this case,
mainly due to reason that there is no medical certificate as to
mental fitness of the deceased to make any declaration. The
next question is that the injured victim was brought to the
hospital by her own father-in-law in the morning but her said
dying declaration was recorded after inordinate delay at about
4:00 pm, which cast serious doubt against any such statement
made by the injured, who was suffering 90 % extensive burn
injuries.
19. In order to re-appreciate the dying declaration of the deceased,
we have to take recourse to principle of law laid down by
Hon,ble Apex Court in some leading cases.
20. A question arose for consideration as to whether dying
declaration loses its value in absence of certificate of doctor
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
regarding fitness of declarant. In the case of Maniram Vs. State
of M.P. (1994) 2 Supl. SCC 539, it was held that "when the
declarant was in the hospital itself, it was a duty of the person
to record dying declaration to do so in the presence of the
doctor and after being duly certified by the doctor that the
declarant was conscious and in his senses and was in a fit
condition to make the declaration. In the said case, the court
also thought it unsafe to rely upon the dying declaration on
account of the aforesaid infirmity and interfere with the
judgment of the High Court. But the aforesaid requirements
are a mere rule of prudence and the ultimate test is whether
the dying declaration can be held to be a truthful one and
voluntarily given. It is no doubt true that before recording the
declaration, the officer concern must find that the declarant
was in a fit condition to make the statement in question."
21. In the case of Ravi Chander vs. State of Punjab (1998) 9 SCC
303, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "for not examining the
doctor, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive
Magistrate and the dying declaration orally made need not be
doubted. The Executive Magistrate is a disinterested witness
and is a responsible officer and there is no circumstance or any
material on record to suspect that the Executive Magistrate had
any animus against the accused or was in any way interested
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
in fabricating the dying declaration and, therefore, the
question of genuineness of the dying declaration recorded by
the Executive Magistrate to be doubted does not arise."
22. In the case of Harjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545,
the Hon,ble Apex Court has examined the same question and
held "as regards the condition of Parmindar Kaur, the witness
has stated that he had first ascertained from the doctor
whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement and
obtained an endorsement to that effect. Merely because that
endorsement was made not on the dying declaration itself but
on the application, that would not render the dying declaration
suspicious in any manner."
23. In the case of Paparambaka Rosamma and Others vs. State of
A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695 as relied upon by the appellant, it was
held that "the deceased has sustained extensive burn injuries
on her person. The doctor, who performed post-mortem stated
that injured had sustained 90% burn injuries. The prosecution
case was solely rested on the dying declaration. It was,
therefore, necessary for the prosecution to prove that dying
declaration as being genuine, true and free from of all doubts
and it was recorded when the injured was in a fit state of mind.
It was further held that in absence of a medical certification
that the injured was fit state of mind at the time of making
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
declaration, it would be very much risky to accept the
subjective satisfaction of magistrate who opined that the
injured was in fit state of mind at the time of making a
declaration. The certificate appended to dying declaration at
the end by the doctor did not comply with the requirement
inasmuch as the doctor had failed to certify that the injured
was in a fit state of mind at the time of recording the dying
declaration. The certificate of the said expert at the end only
stated that "patient is conscious while recording the
statement". In medical science two stages namely conscious
and a fit state of mind are distinct and are not synonymous.
One may be conscious but not necessarily in a fit state of mind.
This distinction was overlooked by the courts below. In view
of this material omissions, it would not be safe to accept the
dying declaration as true and genuine and has made when the
injured was in a fit state of mind. Apart from these serious
lacunas, there were some more infirmities in dying declaration.
Therefore, it was difficult to accept the same."
24. In the case of Paras Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Bihar (1999) 2
SCC 126, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the statement of a
deceased recorded by the police officer in a routine manner as
a complaint and not as a dying declaration can be taken as a
dying declaration after the death of injured if he was found to
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
be in a fit state of health to make a statement. If the dying
declaration is recorded by Investigating Officer, the same can
be relied upon if the evidence of prosecution witness is clearly
established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was
conscious and he was removed to the hospital and he was in a
fit state of health to make a statement." In the instant case, the
position appears to be different.
25. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Wakteng (2007) 14 SCC
550, it was held that "while great solemnity and sanctity is
attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the
verge of death is not likely to tell lie or to concoct a case so as
to implicate an innocent person but the court has to be careful
to ensure that the statement was not the result of either
tutoring, promoting or a product of imagination. It is,
therefore, essential that court must be satisfied that the
deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement, had
clear capacity to observe and identify the assailant that he was
making the statement without any influence or rancour. Once
the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and
voluntary and not suffering from any infirmity can be sole
basis for conviction without any corroboration."
26. In the instant case, we find that the statement of the deceased
was recorded while she was brought severely injured through
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
burn injuries to State Dispensary (PHC). It is admitted position
that at the time of admitting the informant, she was brought by
her own father-in-law, Sita Ram Mandal. The statement of the
injured was not recorded as a dying declaration but rather
First Information Report about the incident. Her fardbayan was
recorded by the S.I. of police Nokehlal Yadav in presence of
her father-in-law and treating medical officer and all have put
their signature on the said statement. In a very concise manner,
the informant states that she was set on ablaze by pouring
kerosene oil on her body by her husband. Her husband was
intending to solemnize second marriage, hence, she went to
her parental home but eight days prior to the occurrence, she
was brought by her husband to matrimonial home and set on
ablaze. She has specifically stated that there is no role of her
mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law in this incident.
It is quite obvious from the evidence of witnesses, who are
near and dear to the deceased, that father (P.W.1) arrived on
the next day, her uncle (P.W.7) arrived on the same day but by
that time, her statement was already recorded by the police
and other witnesses of facts are local villagers of the place of
occurrence. Therefore, there is no reason to raise any doubt
against truth and voluntariness of the statement of the injured
victim. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
was suffering from any embellishment, tutoring, prompting or
any other unwarranted reasons to make such statement.
27. On the basis of statement of injured victim, FIR was registered
against the sole accused (appellant). It is also settled law that
First Information Report lodged by any injured person, who
subsequently dies, can be treated as a dying declaration under
section 32(1) of the Evidence Act (now section 26 of Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Such an FIR is considered to be
substantive evidence, often requiring no further corroboration,
if it clearly describes the circumstances of the death. The brief
statement of the victim (Ext.2) directly relates to cause of her
death and the circumstances under which she subsequently
died. So far, fit mental condition of the informant at the time of
making fardbayan is concerned, the presence of doctor and
father-in-law of the informant (deceased), who has been
examined as P.W.6 by the prosecution, has not disputed in any
manner to the said information while being recorded by the
police officer or any time afterwards, which also fortifies the
statement of the victim to be voluntarily made in a fit
condition of mind and body.
28. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we do not find
any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order
for taking a different view. It appears that learned trial court
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
has very wisely and aptly considered the overall aspects of the
case and also the genuineness of the dying declaration of
deceased and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the
appellant. We concur with the findings recorded by the
learned trial court and do not find any merits in this appeal.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
29. The appellant is on bail, thus his bail bond is cancelled and the
appellant is directed to surrender before the concerned trial
court within two months from the date of the judgment to
suffer the sentence awarded to him, failing which, learned trial
court shall take all coercive steps for taking into custody and
sending the appellant to jail for sustaining the sentence
awarded to him.
30. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
31. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the concerned trial court for information and
needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date: 26 /02 /2026
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
