Orissa High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction For Burning Wife Alive | Says Dying Declaration And Child Witness Leave No Room For Doubt
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. While acquitting the appellant of charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court upheld the life sentence imposed for the offence of murder. The Court directed that the conviction under Section 302 IPC shall stand confirmed and that the substantive sentences for other charges are set aside. The Court’s decision rested primarily on the admissibility and reliability of the deceased’s dying declaration, which was found to be true, voluntary, and recorded when she was in a fit mental state.
The present criminal appeal arose from a judgment delivered by the District and Sessions Judge, Jajpur, in C.T. (Sessions) No.75 of 2012, convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Jayanti Sahoo, who had married the appellant Susanta @ Susil Kumar Sahu about one and a half years prior to the incident, sustained extensive burn injuries on the night of 14.11.2011 at her matrimonial home.
At the time of the incident, the deceased was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and delivered a stillborn child on 16.11.2011. She succumbed to burn injuries on 09.12.2011 at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. The FIR was lodged by her uncle P.W.5 on 15.11.2011 at Bari Ramchandrapur Police Station. It was alleged that the appellant and his parents had demanded Rs.50,000 in dowry and, upon non-fulfilment, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. Initially, multiple family members and neighbours supported this version during the investigation.
However, during trial, the prosecution faced substantial setbacks as most of the family members and independent witnesses turned hostile. Despite this, the trial court relied significantly on the dying declaration of the deceased recorded on 16.11.2011 by P.W.8, an Executive Magistrate, in the presence of a woman constable and a staff nurse, both of whom confirmed the deceased’s statements.
The dying declaration stated that the appellant came home drunk, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire. This was corroborated by the certificate of Dr. Asit Kumar Sethi, certifying that the deceased was conscious, oriented, and in a fit state to make the declaration. Though the doctor was not examined, his certificate was introduced and proved by P.W.8.
The defence claimed the death was accidental or suicidal, asserting that the deceased set herself ablaze using a lamp following a quarrel with the appellant who was inebriated. The appellant denied all charges during examination under Section 313 CrPC, stating that he attempted to extinguish the fire but failed.
The prosecution presented thirteen witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 turned hostile. P.W.4, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, stated that the cause of death was complications from 80-90% ante-mortem burn injuries. P.W.8 recorded the dying declaration and attested to its authenticity and voluntariness. P.W.9, a lady constable, and P.W.11, a staff nurse, were present during the declaration and confirmed the deceased’s statements.
The trial court held the appellant guilty on all charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and lesser concurrent sentences under the other provisions. The appeal challenged the conviction, particularly questioning the reliability of the dying declaration and the absence of supporting evidence for dowry harassment.
The Court observed that "a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence of the court". It further stated that "the declaration must be voluntary, consistent, credible, and devoid of any tutoring or prompting". Regarding the admissibility of the declaration despite 80-90% burns, the Court referred to Supreme Court precedents, observing that "the decisive factor would be the quality of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to make the statement".
It recorded that "we find no reason to doubt the certificate of Dr. Asit Kumar Sethi vide Ext.4, the certificate of P.W.8 vide Ext.4/4 or the declaration vide Ext.4/2 itself". The Court found that the dying declaration "inspires confidence and there is no material that it was the result of either tutoring, prompting or vindictive or product of imagination".
The Court rejected the defence plea as unsubstantiated, stating that "the deceased was 8 to 9 months pregnant and she would have not put her unborn child in danger". It also noted, "the appellant has not stated to have sustained any burn injuries while rescuing the deceased nor has he stated to have taken the deceased to hospital".
On the matter of other charges, the Court found that "even the deceased herself has not stated about such demand and torture in her dying declaration". It held, "we have no choice but to acquit the appellant from the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the I.P.C as well as Section 4 of the D.P. Act".
The Bench observed that the conviction under Section 302 IPC could be sustained solely on the strength of the dying declaration. It held, "the dying declaration proves that the appellant by pouring kerosene on the deceased and setting her on fire, has intentionally committed her murder".
The Court recorded, "we are of the humble view that the conviction of the appellant for commission of the offences under Section 498-A and Section 304-B of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is liable to be set aside and accordingly, we set aside the same and acquit the appellant of the charges under Sections 498-A/304-B of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act".
It further directed, "the conviction of the appellant for commission of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and sentence passed thereunder by the learned trial Court stands confirmed".
Concluding the matter, the Court held, "in the result, the JCRLA is partly allowed. Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court forthwith for information and necessary action".
The Court expressed appreciation, stating, "we put on record our appreciation to the efforts of Ms. Rita Singh, learned Amicus curiae and Mr. Aurobindo Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel who have prepared the case thoroughly and argued sincerely and rendered their valuable assistance in arriving at the above decision".
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Ms. Rita Singh (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondent: Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
Case Title: Susanta @ Susil Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha
Case Number: JCRLA No.08 of 2014
Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, Justice Savitri Ratho
[Read/Download order]
