Doubtful That A Victim Who Suffered 100% Burn Injuries Could Make A Dying Declaration: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court observed that a victim/deceased who caught fire and suffered 100 percent burn injuries would not have been in a position to give any statements implicating the accused, thereby casting doubts on the correctness of claim in the dying declaration.

The division bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Jitendra Kumar was considering a criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.

The appellants are husband and father-in-law of the deceased who died due to burn injuries. The dying declaration (fardbeyan) of the deceased was recorded by the Sub-Inspector (PW-6) in presence of the brother of the deceased (PW-1) and a doctor (PW-4) at a hospital.

During the Trial, deceased's brother had stated that he received a call from his uncle informing him that his sister had been burned by her husband and in-laws. He went to the Police station and informed the police about the incident which accompanied him to the deceased's matrimonial home. There, deceased's brother witnessed that the deceased was fully burnt. At the hospital, the Sub-Inspector recorded that the victim's husband and in-laws had set her on fire for not bringing Rs. 2 lakhs dowry from her home.

The appellants argued that deceased died an accidental death and as she was completely burnt, she could not have made any statements as claimed by the prosecution.

The High Court noted that the prosecution did not object to the defence exhibits that showed the victim had suffered 100% burn injuries. Regarding the dying declaration of the deceased, the Court remarked “With such burn injuries to the extent of 100%, as claimed by the defence, she would not have been in a position to make a detailed statement implicating the appellants…and which statement has been relied upon by the Trial Court as the dying declaration of the deceased.”

The Court also observed that during doctor's cross-examination, he had stated that the burn injuries were not 100%, although this was not specified in the post-mortem report.

The Court raised concerns about deceased's brother heading directly to the police station upon hearing of his sister's burn incident, rather than going first to her matrimonial home. It observed that“…the evidence is not consistent with respect to PW-1 having gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased first and the deceased, while she still survived, being in a position to talk and give her statement.”

The Court also raised doubts over the police going to the victim's matrimonial home without first obtaining a detailed statement from her brother. It stated “It appears to be rather strange that on the asking of the brother of the victim and without recording any detailed statement, the police proceeded to the matrimonial home of the deceased.”

During the Trial, sub-inspector stated that the injuries on the victim were not to the extent of 100 percent and that she was still conscious in her matrimonial home. With respect to this, the Court remarked that “If the victim was found to be conscious, it would have been the best possible step to get her statement recorded there only before taking her to the hospital. Some time had elapsed in arranging for a vehicle.”

The Court pointed out that there was no clarity on who transported the victim to the hospital, raising doubts on “whether the police had brought the victim to the hospital or she was brought to the hospital under another circumstance.”

The prosecution's case further raised doubts as it did not present any independent witnesses and it did not examine the deceased's son who had given a statement to the police that his mother caught fire while straining rice.

The Court held that the prosecution's case raised doubt that the dying declaration/fardbeyan was manipulated and that it could not prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

“The deceased having suffered 100 percent burn injuries and the unnecessary insistence of PW-4 and PW-6 about the fit mental and physical health of the victim/ deceased to make such statement, renders the prosecution case doubtful or at-least the implication of the appellants to be not beyond shadow of doubts.”

It thus reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the appellants under Section 498A and 302 IPC.

Case title: Mahesh Pandit & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar, CR. APP (DB) No.1242 of 2016

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 49

Click Here To Read/Download Order