[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deendayal vs Smt. Sukhambai Yadav on 30 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8714
1 CRA-6985-2019
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 30th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6985 of 2019
DEENDAYAL
Versus
SMT. SUKHAMBAI YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Kriti Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.1
and 2.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
Heard this appeal finally.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed by appellant being aggrieved of
the judgment dated 14.06.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Hoshangabad, District Hoshangabad in S.T. No.32/2018, whereby the
learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons namely
mother-in-law and Husband of the deceased from charges under Section 302
of IPC in the alternative Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC.
3. Ms. Kriti Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per
statement of Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-12), who had seen the victim for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8714
2 CRA-6985-2019
first time at Community Health Centre, Babai, he had given his opinion that
her burns were up to 90%. Thus, it is stated that when Dr. Taniya Ali (PW-8)
stated that a patient with 90% burn injury, can give her statement. When this
fact is corroborated with the statement of Dr. Ramesh Kumar, then it is
evident that dying declaration Ex.P-7 recorded in presence of Dr. Taniya Ali
(PW-8) by G.S. Raghuwanshi, A.S.I. is to be believed and conviction should
have been made on the basis of such dying declaration.
4. Shri Sourabh Bhushan Shrivastava, learned counsel for
respondents/accused persons reads paragraph 25 and 26 of the impugned
judgment to point out lacunas in the prosecution case and submits that after
proper appreciation of facts, evidence has been recorded and trial Court has
rightly recorded a finding of acquittal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, first submission made by Ms. Kriti Jain that Dr. Ramesh Kumar
(PW-12) stated that burn area in his opinion was 90% is not of much
relevance because in para 3 of his cross-examination this Dr. has
categorically stated that general condition of the patient was not satisfactory
i.e. patient was semiconscious and was not in a position to give her
statement. Thus, it is evident that reading statements of a witness out of
context will not help the appellant and it was the duty of the appellant's
counsel to have read complete statement and should have brought correct
facts before the Court.
6. This statement of Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-12) on whose testimony
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8714
3 CRA-6985-2019
lot of emphasis has been placed by Ms. Kriti Jain itself in cross-examination
clarifies that the patient was not in a position to give statement. This fact gets
corroboration from evidence of Dr. Taniya Ali (PW-8) that there was no
endorsement by the Doctor before beginning of the dying declaration (Ex.P-
7) and on completion of dying declaration (Ex.P-7) that patient was in a fit
mental state to give her statement. Thus, when these facts are tested in the
light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Purshottam Chopra Vs. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2020) 11 SCC 489, where Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that merely because of 100% burn injuries, it cannot be said that the
victim will always be incapable to make a statement which could be acted
upon as dying declaration and it is further held that fitness of the maker of
the declaration and the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration
have all to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case even
one involving 100% burn injuries is taken into consideration, then we are of
the opinion that since Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-12), who had for the first time
examined the victim, stated that she was unconscious and was not in a
position to give any statement is taken into consideration and read in
juxtaposition with the statements of Dr. Taniya Ali (PW-8), who admits that
she had not certified the patient to be fit to give her dying declaration either
at the beginning of the dying declaration or at the end of the dying
declaration, but had only mentioned that since she was cent percent burnt, it
was not possible to obtain her thumb or finger impression, leaves no iota of
doubt that there is no corroboration to the so called dying declaration (Ex.P-
7) that too obtained by A.S.I. and not by an Executive Magistrate.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8714
4 CRA-6985-2019
7. When all these facts are taken into consideration, we do not find any
illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal, calling for interference,
therefore, this criminal appeal fails and is dismissed.
8. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp/-
