RAM VISWAS versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1110 · Decided: 14-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1110 
RAM VISWAS 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 14, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Death of married woman due 
to bum injuries - Prosecution case that the victim's husband 
C i.e. the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and set her 
on fire - In the dying declaration recorded by the Naib 
Tahsildar, the victim named the appellant for the overt act -
Conviction of appellant u/s. 302 /PC with RI for life -
Justification - Held: The dying declaration satisfied all the 
D prescribed conditions and procedure and was proved beyond 
doubt - Prosecution was fully justified in relying on the dying 
declaration - Appellant was the only person inside the room 
at the time of the incident along with the victim - Even if it is 
accepted that in the course of the said incident he sustained 
E some bum injuries, it is not a ground for exonerating his guilt 
- Merely because there was no sign of smell of kerosene oil 
. from the bed sheet, quilt and pillow, the case of the 
prosecution cannot be thrown out - Conviction of appellant 
accordingly upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.32. 
F 
According to the prosecution, in order to get rid of 
his wife, the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and set 
her on fire. The victim sustained 100% burn injuries. Her 
statement/declaration was recorded wherein she named 
the appellant for the overt act. Later she succumbed to 
G her injuries. The trial Court convicted the appellant under 
Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for life. 
The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High 
Court and therefore the instant appeal. 
H 
1110 
RAM VISWAS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
1111 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is seen from the FIR (Exh.P-4) that the 
accused-appellant was not happy with his married life 
and had frequent quarrels with the deceased. A perusal 
A 
of the FIR further shows that on 03.02.1998, in the 
8 
midnight, when the appellant and the deceased alone 
were in the house, the appellant poured kerosene oil on 
the deceased and set her on fire. It is further seen that 
on hearing the cry of the deceased, a number of persons 
entered into the room when the appellant himself opened 
C 
the door from inside and a report was made to the police. 
(Para 7] (1115-A-C] 
2. The dying declaration Exh.P-11 made by the victim 
was recorded by Naib Tahsildar, (PW-11) wherein it was 
stated that the victim's husband abused her and 
D 
compelled her to go away from his house. She further 
stated that on the fateful night, when they were sleeping 
together, he poured kerosene oil on her and set fire. She 
further narrated that when she shouted for help, 
neighbours came in and she was taken to G.M.Hospital, 
E 
Rewa. The above statement was recorded at 3.25 p.m. on 
04.02.1998. Before recording the above statement, the 
doctor concerned certified that she was fit for giving a 
statement. The doctor also certified that the patient was 
conscious while giving the dying declaration. Inasmuch 
F 
as the Tahsildar (PW-11) recorded her statement after 
fulfilling all the formalities and her condition was also 
specified as seen from the certificate of the doctor, there 
is no reason to reject the same, on the other hand, as 
rightly accepted by the trial Court and the High Court, the 
G 
prosecution is fully justified in relying on the same. The 
dying declaration satisfied all the prescribed conditions 
and procedure and is proved beyond doubt. [Paras 8, 9, 
10] (1115-D-H; 1116-B] 
3. As rightly observed by the trial Court and the High 
H 
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A Court, merely because there was no sign of smell of 
kerosene oil from the bed sheet, quilt and pillow, the case 
of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. [Para 1 O] [1116-
A] 
8 
4. It is clear from the prosecution case that the 
appellant was the only person inside the room at the time 
of the incident along with his wife. Even if it is accepted 
that in the course of the said incident he sustained some 
burn injuries, it is not a ground for exonerating his guilt. 
Dr. (PW-8) has stated that on 04.02.1998 he examined the 
C victim and found her conscious and fit to make a 
statement. The said report has also been marked as 
Exh.P-11 and the statement of the deceased was 
recorded by the Executive Magistrate in his presence. 
[Para 11] [1116-C-D] 
D 
E 
5. In the light of the abov

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.