Ram Singh Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 827 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ram Singh Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493




                                                               1                               CRA-12963-2023
                            IN        THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                       &
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
                                                ON THE 27th OF JANUARY, 2026
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12963 of 2023
                                                   RAM SINGH AHIRWAR
                                                          Versus
                                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                              Ms. Sarita Kochal, Advocate for the appellant.
                              Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.

                                                          JUDGMENT

Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal

Learned counsel for the appellant instead of pressing I.A.No.9895/2025, which is second application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Ram Singh Ahirwar, prays that this appeal be heard finally.

2. Accordingly, I.A.No.9895/2025, is dismissed as not pressed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard finally.

3. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.08.2018, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.), in S.T.No.581/2016, whereby the appellant has been

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

2 CRA-12963-2023

convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC, for which he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with default stipulation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.

5. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts on record in the correct perspective and has arbitrarily convicted the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that it is an admitted fact that marriage of deceased Sunita took place with Ram Singh Ahirwar in the year 1997. They have two children from the marriage. Sunita died during

treatment at Shraddha Hospital, Bhopal, on 27.03.2016. It is pointed out that there are two dying declarations available on record. Ex. P/18, is the dying declaration, which was recorded at the first point of time on 16.03.2016, at about 03:50 A.M., in which Sunita has mentioned that she was pouring kerosene in a bottle, when it had spread on the floor. As soon as she lit the match stick, it caught fire and she got burnt. Son of her 'Jeth' had poured water. It is pointed out that in the dying declaration, it is mentioned that there was nobody at home, all were out. There was no dispute with anybody. Nobody had put her on fire and nobody is to be blamed for the fire. She stated that her husband and 'Jeth' had brought her to the hospital for treatment and also denied that there was any pressure on her to tell lies. Thus, it is pointed out that an accidental fire has been converted into a case of murder, which is contrary to the record and, therefore, prayer is made to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

3 CRA-12963-2023 set aside the finding of conviction and record acquittal in favour of the appellant.

7. Learned Govt. Advocate Shri Ajay Tamrakar, on the contrary, submits that in fact there are two more documents which are relevant for the controversy and they are subsequent dying declaration of the Victim and another is 161 Cr.P.C., statements of the Victim as are available on record as Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/21, respectively. It is pointed out that in Ex.P/8, subsequent dying declaration dated 26.03.2016, Victim has blamed her husband and, therefore, conviction does not call for any interference.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, Victim was brought to the hospital by her relatives. In the Pre-MLC, Ex.P/30, it is mentioned that Victim was admitted in the hospital on 15.03.2016, at about 10:00 P.M.. It is mentioned in the history that she was cooking food and was lighting chimney, then her Sari caught fire because of kerosene in the chimney. Incident took place at about 08:00 P.M.. They came at Shraddha Hospital on 15.03.2016 at 10:00 P.M.. Her general condition was poor.

9. First dying declaration was recorded as contained in Ex.P/18, proved by Rajesh Sorte (PW/17), Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate.

10. It is evident from this dying declaration Ex.P/18, which was recorded by Rajesh Sorte (PW/17), Tahsildar on 16.03.2016, that there was no blame on

anybody. Subsequently, another dying declaration was recorded as contained in Ex.P/8, in which she blamed her husband. This statement was

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

4 CRA-12963-2023

recorded by P.S. Vedi (PW/11), Naib Tehsildar.

11. Issue which is to be dealt with is that how to iron out of contradictions between two dying declarations ?

12. Ram Narayan Ahirwar (PW/1), stated that accused is his brother-in-law. Sunita was his younger sister. They are four sisters and two brothers. This witness is an eldest. Marriage of Sunita was performed about 20 years back with Ram Singh Ahirwar. She has two children aged about 11 years and 05 years. Ram Singh Ahirwar was usually fighting with Sunita. He had sold out his land at Village Kurana. He had given sale proceeds to Sunita and had kept some with him. When he had spent his money, he used to demand money from Sunita, which resulted in frequent altercations. In 2016, when Sunita got burnt, he had gone to visit her at Shraddha Hospital, where she had stated that in an altercation, she caught fire. He had got his sister treated.

13. In cross-examination, Ram Narayan Ahirwar (PW/1), stated that he learnt about the incident on 24.03.2016. His family members had already met Sunita prior to his meeting on 24.03.2016. This witness stated that he had learnt from his 'Bhanja' about the incident. He admitted his memorandum Ex.P/4 and his signatures on the memorandum. This witness also admitted that their relatives were present and informed the police that kerosene was poured over her. This fact was not narrated by his sister. On 24.03.2016, when had gone to visit her sister for the first time, that time his family members had given intimation.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

5 CRA-12963-2023

14. In para 9, Ram Narayan Ahirwar (PW/1), admitted that since 1997, his sisters and brothers were living comfortably.

15. Munnalal Ahirwar (PW/2), is elder brother of accused Ram Singh Ahirwar. This witness stated that at the time of the incident, he was emptying his trolley. He saw Sunita, who came running and had fallen at his door. He poured water and taken Sunita to hospital. Ramdayal Ahirwar (PW/3) was not present. He called Ramdayal Ahirwar (PW/3) and had taken Sunita in a four wheeler.

16. In cross-examination, Munnalal Ahirwar (PW/2), clearly sated that there was no altercation between Ramdayal and Sunita at the time of the incident. Sunita had informed that she caught fire from the chimney.

17. Similar statements have been given by Ramdayal Ahirwar (PW/3), younger brother of the accused Ram Singh Ahirwar. He was declared hostile, yet he has not supported the prosecution case.

18. Jagdish Prasad Ahirwar (PW/4), was declared hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case.

19. Smt. Prembai Ahirwar (PW/5), stated that Ram Singh is her son-in-law and Sunita was his daughter. She has three sons and four daughters. Sunita was third number. Twenty years back her marriage was performed with accused. This witness stated that in the hospital, she had asked Sunita as to how she got burnt, then she stated that she was pouring kerosene in the chimney, then her Sari caught fire. This witness was declared hostile and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

6 CRA-12963-2023 leading questions were put to her.

20 Prahlad Ahirwar (PW/6), also stated on the same line that Victim Sunita had informed him that she was pouring oil in the chimney, which had fallen as a result of which, she caught fire.

21. Similar statements have been given by Kamlesh Ahirwar (PW/7).

22. Saurabh Ahirwar (PW/8), also gave statements on the similar lines and in cross-examination, it was stated that his parents were residing happily and cordially and there was no dispute between them.

23. Rambabu Ahirwar (PW/9), is a witness of recovery of articles.

24. Ravi Ahirwar (PW/10), stated that Sunita informed him that she had poured kerosene on herself to threaten Ram Singh. In cross-examination, Ravi Ahirwar (PW/10), stated that Sunita and Ram Singh were living cordially and there was no dispute between them.

25. P.S. Vedi (PW/11), recorded statements of Sunita on 25.03.2016, as contained in Ex.P/8. In cross-examination, P.S. Vedi (PW/11), admitted that he had no information as to since when she was admitted in hospital. He had no information that as to what dying declaration was given by the Victim at earlier point of time.

26. Dr. Manoj Nigam (PW/12), stated that he had examined injured Ravi Ahirwar and Munnalal Ahirwar, who had burnt marks on their hands which could have been contacted while dousing the fire.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

7 CRA-12963-2023

27. Dr. C.S. Jain (PW/13), Forensic Specialist, stated that he had conducted postmortem, cause of death was on account of complications arising out of burnt injuries resulting in heart failure and obstruction of breathe.

28. Sunil Gupta (PW/14), Scientific Officer, had visited the scene of crime and had prepared his report.

29. Narayan Kumar (PW/15), is the photographer who had carried out the photography of the spot under the directions of Sunil Gupta (PW/14).

30. Sarvesh Singh (PW/16), ASI, had recorded Merg. He had sent intimation to the SDM and Tehsildar.

31. Rajesh Sorte (PW/17), Tehsildar, had recorded first dying declaration Ex.P/18 and proved the same. He stated that at the time of recording of dying declaration, nobody from the family was present around Sunita.

32. Udaiveer Singh (PW/19), stated that he had given intimation to Rajesh Sorte (PW/17) for recording dying declaration of the injured. He has proved FSL report etc.

33. In cross-examination, Udaiveer Singh (PW/19), admitted that the cricket bat which was seized, was local and it can be found anywhere.

34. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Vyas (PW/20), had examined Sunita on 15.03.2016, at Shraddha Hospital. He proved the report given by Dr. S.C. Pandey, who could not depose because of his treatment at Chennai on account of suffering hemorrhage in eyes.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

8 CRA-12963-2023

35. Thus, it is evident from the prosecution case that when Victim had given her own statements immediately after the incident that too to the Executive Magistrate, Rajesh Sarote (PW/17), that she caught fire on account of spilling of kerosene which she was trying to fill in a container, yet not mentioning that how that dying declaration is inadmissible or that prosecution proved that, that dying declaration was either tutored or was given under fear of accused party, especially when the Victim was brought to the hospital by brother of the accused Ramdayal and his nephew Ravi, who too had sustained injuries while dousing the fire, and then recording of second dying declaration after ten days of the incident, when there was sufficient opportunities for the relatives to tutor her and settle recourse, especially when it has come on record that in the second dying declaration Ex.P/8, Victim had stated that house is in the name of her husband and she wants that house to be in her name and in the name of her children. Thereafter, she admitted that there was no pressure on her to speak lies, but she was giving that statement as an after thought, then learned trial Court clearly erred in recording a finding of conviction on the basis of subsequent dying declaration, which neither inspires confidence nor is an independent dying declaration, inasmuch as, in Ex.P/8, Victim has clearly stated that she wanted property in her and her children's name, which clearly reveals that second dying declaration was recorded to corner property of the appellant and not for any other purpose. That being the motive, learned trial Court clearly erred in disaffirming the genesis of second dying declaration and without discussing the genesis of second dying declaration and also the fact

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

9 CRA-12963-2023 that it was tutored, was a result of an after thought, with a view to corner property, could not have been placed reliance on, unless prosecution would have proved that the first dying declaration contained in Ex.P/18, was tutored or was obtained under coercion, we are of the opinion that impugned judgment of conviction recorded on surmises and conjectures and on inadmissible portion of evidence, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

36. This view of ours finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Makhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2023) 13 SCC 760], wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that when there are two dying declarations, then benefit of doubt is required to be extended in favour of the accused.

37. In Lakhan Vs. State of M.P. [(2010) 8 SCC 514], Hon'ble Apex Court observed that :-

"21. In view of the above, the law on the issue of dying declaration can be summarised to the effect that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and it has not been made under any tutoring /duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for recording conviction. In such an eventuality no corroboration is required. In case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7493

10 CRA-12963-2023 no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness. In case there are circumstances wherein the declaration had been made, not voluntarily and even otherwise, it is not supported by any other evidence, the Court has to scrutinise the facts of an individual case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance."

38. In the result, impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2018 is, hereby, set aside. Appeal is allowed. Appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if deposited before the learned trial Court, be refunded in favour of the appellant only through Account Payee Cheque or RTGS in the account of the appellant/accused.

39. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back.

                                     (VIVEK AGARWAL)                  (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
                                          JUDGE                                  JUDGE
                           A.Praj.