MOONGA BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. J. Khurai in S. T. No. 77/91 vide impugned judgment dated 26-8-91 recording conviction of appellant under Section 302, IPC sentenced her to imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr. PC.

(2.) RAJENDRA Ahirwar (P. W. 5) is son of appellant Moonga Bai. Deceased Shyam Bai being wife of Rajendra was her daughter-in-law. With Rajendra she was living separately in a room forming part of residential house of appellant-Moonga Bai and others. On 18-6-90 at about 8 PM deceased Shyam Bai sustaining about 66% burn on her body was taken to the Police Station. Where she lodged the report (Ex. P-5) to the effect that deceased Geeta Bai sprinkled kerosene on her body and appellant mother-in-law set her on fire. Kashiram (P. W. 1), Vimla Bai (P. W. 2) and Raju (P. W. 3) rushed to save her and extinguished the fire. On the basis of report aforesaid deceased Shyam Bai was sent to the hospital. Dr. N. K. Rohit (P. W. 12) on examination found superficial burn on different parts of body. Deceased Shyam Bai sustaining approximately 67% burn on her body at that time was conscious. Mahendra Singh, the Executive Magistrate (P. W. 13) on request visited the hospital and recorded dying declaration (Ex. P-14) of the deceased. Similarly Inspector R. K. Mishra (P. W. 11) recorded statement under Section 161, Cr. PC of deceased Shyam Bai vide Ex. P-12. Deceased Shyam Bai since then remained in the hospital and on 29-6-90 died. On the basis of merg intimation (Ex. P-19) preparing inquest Panchnama (Ex. P-18) the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Dr. V. K. Rawat (P. W. 14) performing autopsy submitted report (Ex. P-15) to the effect that deceased Shyam Bai died of shock due to extensive burn on her body. Completing the investigation, appellant Moonga Bai and her daughter deceased Geeta Bai were prosecuted.

(3.) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and contended that deceased Shyam Bai since was dissatisfied, sprinkling kerosene, set herself on fire. She was rescued from her room and was taken to the Police Station. The Court below vide impugned judgment relying on the dying declarations (Ex. P-14 and P-12) respectively held that deceased Geeta Bai sprinkled kerosene on the body of deceased Shyam Bai and appellant Moonga Bai set her on fire, as such recording conviction under Section 302, IPC, appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The conviction vide impugned judgment has been assailed mainly on the ground that the Court below erred in recording conviction of appellant on the sole basis of alleged dying declaration (Ex. P-5, P-14 and P-12 ). The Court below failed to take into consideration that on the basis of evidence on record the alleged dying declarations were nothing but manipulated piece of papers. Section 32 of evidence Act reads as under: Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or can not be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance can not be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, arc themselves relevant facts in the following cases: When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the persons who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.