Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjida Begum vs The State Of M.P. on 5 May, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
1 CRA-1349-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1349 of 2004
SANJIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
None for the appellants.
Ms. Anuradha Patel - Advocate for the complainant/Objector.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The appeal is listed today for a report on the execution of warrant
issued against appellant no.4 who is absconding in this case. The appeal is of
the year 2004 and the incident is of 2002. None appears on behalf of the
appellants. Ms. Anuradha Patel, learned counsel appears on behalf of the
complainant/Objector and Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned counsel appears for
the State. As the appeal is of the year 2002, this Court decided to hear the
learned counsel for the complainant and the State to ascertain if interference
with the judgment of the learned trial Court was required. If such
interference was not called for and the order was to be sustained, then the
necessity of hearing the appellant's counsel would be essential.
2 CRA-1349-2004
2. According to the learned counsel for the complainant and the
State, an incident took place on 19.09.2002 due to which the deceased Rabia
bi suffered burn injuries due to which she died 11 days later on 30.09.2002.
Initially, she was treated at the Government Hospital, Katni and her MLC
was prepared on 19.09.2002 itself at 12:30 p.m. The MLC records that the
scalp hair was partially burned and there were superficial to deep burn
injuries which were present on the face and neck and both upper limbs, chest
and back of chest, butt, thigh and lateral aspect of both legs of the deceased.
It also records that the deceased was conscious, but her pulse was feeble, and
the systolic blood pressure was less than 60 mm Hg. It further records that
she was admitted for treatment and expert opinion was also called for. This
document has been exhibited as Exhibit-D/12 (PW-1). Thereafter, at Katni
itself, a dying declaration was recorded of deceased on 19.09.2002 at 7:15
p.m. at the Government Hospital, Katni. Before it was recorded, the
certification of the Doctor present was given at 7:10 p.m. which certified that
the deceased was fit to give her statement. For the sake of brevity, this Court
is referring to the answer given by the deceased to question no.5 where she
was asked as to how she suffered burns to which the deceased replied that
she was cooking food and on account of stove burst, she caught fire. The
time of the incident given by the deceased is 10:30 a.m. In question no.7, she
was specifically asked whether anyone had burnt her to which she says 'No'.
After the statement was recorded there is another certification of the Doctor
who certified that the deceased was conscious throughout the recording of
the statement. This certification is at 7:30 p.m. The dying declaration was
3 CRA-1349-2004
recorded by one R.R. Pandey who is the Tehsildar, Katni and the end time is
given as 7:25 p.m. It is essential to mention here that the said Tehsildar has
been examined as PW-8 to which this Court shall shortly refer. Thereafter,
she was shifted to Jabalpur Medical College and Hospital on 20.09.2002 and
two days later, a second dying declaration was recorded on 22.09.2002 at
2:31 p.m. in the Burn Ward of the Medical College. There is a certification
of the Doctor Pankaj Garde at 2:34 p.m. to the effect that the patient is in a
condition to give statement. Once again, for the sake of brevity, this Court
refers to directly to the most relevant questions put by the Tehsildar, Jabalpur
as to how she suffered burns injuries to which the deceased has answered
that she was cutting vegetables when her mother-in-law and elder sister-in-
law poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. As regards the timings,
she said that it was approximately around 11:00 a.m. She further states that
the incident took place at her matrimonial home and to the question as to
who had set her on fire, she says that her mother-in-law Sajida and elder
sister-in-law Pravin poured kerosene oil over her and her husband lit a
matchstick and set her on fire. To the question as to who all were present at
the scene of occurrence when the incident took place, the deceased answered
that it was her elder sister-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and elder brother-
in-law were present and besides them no one else. The next question that was
put to her was with regard to the reason why the said persons had set her on
fire to which the deceased answered that these people used to taunt her that
no scooter or dowry was ever brought by her and on the third day of the
Roza, she was making tea and on account of delay in preparing the same,
4 CRA-1349-2004
they are said to have quarreled with her and then set her on fire.
3. The deceased died on 30.09.2002 and an inquest bearing
no.105/2002 was prepared pursuant to which the First Information Report
came to be registered 17 days later on 17.10.2002 and in the course of
investigation, the 161 statements of the kith and kin of the deceased were
recorded on 22.10.2002.
4. In this case, the Court finds that there are two dying declarations,
both duly recorded as provided under law by the Naib Tehsildar after due
certification from the Doctor, before and after recording of the said
statements, one on 19.09.2002 and the other on 22.09.2002. This Court put
the question directly to the learned counsel for the complainant and the State
that in such a situation which of the two should the Court believe as both are
dying declarations have been proved by PW-8 and PW-9 respectively who
have stated that they have recorded the statement of the deceased person.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there was a history
of continuous torture, taunting of the deceased by the appellants from the
very beginning for not having brought adequate dowry. She has taken this
Court through the testimony of PW-1, who is the father of the deceased,
wherein he has given a litany of instances where the deceased used to visit
her parental home several times while she was alive. During such visits, the
deceased told the witness about the indignities and torture that she was being
subjected to by the appellants for not bringing adequate dowry. Learned
counsel for the complainant has also referred to that part of the statement of
PW-1 where he states that a Panchayat was also called for in which the
5 CRA-1349-2004
appellants appeared before the said Panchayat and assured that the deceased
would be looked after properly henceforth and there shall be no demands
upon her.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that Exhibit-P/13 which is the
first dying declaration is doubtful and not worthy of reliance in comparison
to Exhibit-P/14 which is a second dying declaration recorded on 22.09.2002.
In order to substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the State has drawn
the attention of this Court to paragraph-7 of PW-1's testimony wherein he
has stated that from the time of marriage till she died, the deceased had come
to the parental home at least four times and on the date when this incident
had taken place, the witness was informed by a neighbour of the deceased by
a phone call. He further states that on 19.09.2002 he reached Katni in the
evening and found that the deceased was in an unconscious state and she
regained consciousness only when she reached Jabalpur. Learned counsel for
the State, on the said basis, states that PW-1 has stated that the deceased was
unconscious till she reached Jabalpur and therefore, her dying declaration
which has been recorded at Katni by the Naib Tehsildar is extremely
doubtful.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the State and
perused the record of the learned trial Court.
7. The genesis of the case has also been recorded herein by this Court
herein above and for the sake of brevity is not reiterated. As regards the
evidence against the appellants, they are the statements of the father, mother,
sister and brother of the deceased who are PW-1 to PW-4 respectively. They
6 CRA-1349-2004
have all stated almost unisons about the torture that was meted out to the
deceased during the course of her marriage for inadequate dowry. As regards
the statement of PW-1 that a Panchayat was concluded to settle the matter in
which the appellants had informed the Panchayat that they would henceforth
ensure that the deceased was not put to any kind pain or discomfort and that
she will be well looked after. It is however necessary to record here that none
of the members of the Panchayat were ever examined as prosecution witness.
Had they so been made witnesses and if they had testified to that effect, the
first aspect of cruelty being inflicted upon the deceased for bringing
inadequate dowry may have strengthened the prosecution case. However, on
account of its absence, this Court is unable to come to a conclusion that there
is evidence to show that such demand for dowry and torture was heaped
upon the deceased, are correct. This view of the Court is fortified by the fact
that from 19.09.2002 to 30.09.2002 till the deceased passed away, PW-1 to
PW-4 had adequate opportunities to intimate the Police that the deceased did
not suffer accidental burns but that she was burnt deliberately by the
appellants herein for not bringing adequate dowry and an FIR could have
been registered for offences under Section 498-A, 304-B/511. However, no
such compliant or statement was ever made to the police during the 11 days
before the deceased died on 30.09.2002.
8. Even thereafter, the FIR was registered on 17.10.2002 which this
Court may appreciate as the time taken during the inquest proceedings.
However, the 161 statement of the witnesses were recorded on 22.10.2002.
No credible explanation has been given with regard to the delay as the
7 CRA-1349-2004
Investigating Officer himself has not been examined as a prosecution witness
in this case. The non-examination of the IO may not be fatal in all cases but
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was essential to examine
the IO so as to explain the delay in recording the statement of the witnesses
u/s. 161 Cr.P.C where such delay could only be explained by the IO.
9. Focusing yet again on the two dying declarations, it is essential to
refer briefly to the statements of PW-8 and PW-9 who are the Tehsildars at
Katni and Jabalpur respectively. PW-8 states that the deceased was conscious
and the certification of the Doctor was received before he has recorded her
statement. He further testifies that at the time of recording the dying
declaration, neither were the parents of the deceased nor the In-laws of the
deceased, present in the room. PW-9 states that he has gone to record the
statement of the deceased on 22.09.2002 upon instructions from the SDM,
Jabalpur. The SDM, Jabalpur has not been examined as a witness and neither
has any document been exhibited by the Tehsildar to show that he had
received written instructions from the SDM, Jabalpur to record the dying
declaration of the deceased. Thus, the need to record a second dying
declaration of the deceased when no aspersions were cast on the first dying
declaration, under the instructions of the SDM which has not been proved by
the prosecution, the recording of the second dying declaration appears to this
court as suspicious Court.
10. In view of what has been argued by the learned counsel for the
complainant and the State and considered as hereinabove, this Court is of the
view that there were several gaps in the case of the prosecution commencing
8 CRA-1349-2004
with the delay in filing a complainant against the appellants herein from
19.9.2002 to 30.09.2002, the delay in recording the 161 statements of PW-1
to PW-4 on 22.10.2002, gives an impression that there was sufficient time
for the witnesses to conceive a story to implicate the appellants herein. As
the first dying declaration categorically states that it was a stove burst on
account of which the deceased suffered the burns and also as it is the
admitted position of the State that the seizure memorandum discloses an iron
stove which had a loose cap over its fuel tank, compels this Court to believe
the first dying declaration given by the deceased on 19.09.2002 which
absolves the appellants herein.
11. Therefore, the appeal succeeds. The judgment and order of
conviction dated 16.07.2004 passed by the learned Court below is hereby set
aside and the appellants are acquitted. As all the appellants are on bail, there
bail bonds stand discharged.
12. Consequently, the non-bailable warrant comes to an end and the
appeal stands disposed of.
13. With the copy of this judgment, records of the trial Court be
returned back.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Priya.P
