SUKANTI MOHARANA versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 996 · Decided: 29-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 11 S.C.R. 996 
A 
SUKANTI MOHARANA 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 29, 2009 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Death due to extensive bum 
)< 
.. 
c injuries - Allegedly caused when appellant poured kerosene 
on deceased and set her on fire with a matchstick - Appellant 
is wife of deceased's brother-in-law- Two dying declarations, 
one made before doctor and the other, an oral dying 
declaration made by deceased before her parents -
D Conviction of appellant by Courts below - Justification of -
Held: On facts, justified - Dying declaration recorded by 
doctor vividly mentions the manner in which deceased 
1' 
~ 
suffered the bum injuries - Description given by deceased 
in the dying declaration is clear, unambiguous and 
E acceptable - Doctor who recorded the dying declaration 
categorically stated that deceased was conscious and in a fit 
mental condition to make such a statement - Further 
corroboration by oral dying declaration, medical evidence as 
also the facts contained in the FIR - Evidence Act, 1872 -
F s.32. 
... 
~ 
PW1's daughter died in hospital due to extensive 
burn injuries allegedly caused when appellant poured 
kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. 
Appellant is wife of deceased's brother-in-law. 
G 
Placing reliance upon the two purported dying 
declarations made by the deceased, one before the 
)..,. 
doctor PW10 and the other, an oral dying declaration 
made before PWs 1 and 3, the courts below convicted the 
H 
996 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A in which the deceased suffered the burn injuries on 
pouring kerosene oil on her by the appellant who also 
lighted the matc~stick which caused the fire and burnt 
the deceased. The appellant not only poured the 
kerosene oil on the deceased and lit the fire but also 
B closed the door after going out of the said room where 
the deceased was left to burn by the fire. The said 
description given by the deceased in the· dying 
declaration recorded by the doctor is clear, unambiguous 
and there is no reason why the said dying declaration 
c should not be accepted as correct and true version of the 
incident. However, the said dying declaration recorded by 
the doctor is also corroborated by the oral dying 
declaration made before PW-1 and PW-3 and the said fact 
also finds corroboration from the statement of PW-1 and 
0 PW-3 and also from the FIR which were proved through 
the evidence of PW-1. [Paras 20 and 21] [1008-A-B; 1008-
C-D] 
2.2. Also, the dying declaration was recorded by a 
doctor who was most disinterested witness. It was also 
E categorically stated by the doctor that at the time when 
she made her dying declaration, she was in a fit state of 
mind. [Para 28] [1011-G] 
2.3. Both the courts were totally justified and ·also 
F right in relying upon the two dying declarations one 
recorded by the doctor (PW-10) and the other i.e. !>ral 
dying declaration made to PW-1 and PW-3. The objection 
raised regarding the doctor's certification ·and 
endorsement as to mental fitness of the deceased, is 
only a rule of prudence and not the ultimate test as to 
G whether or not the said dying declaration was 'truthfui ~r 
voluntary. [Para 31) [1012-F-H; 1012-A] 
· · 
2.4. The doctor who recorded the dying declaration 
was examined as a witness and he had in his deposition 
H categorically stated that the deceased while making the 
SUKANTI MOHARANA v. STATE OF OR.ISSA 
999 
~ 
aforesaid statement was conscious and in a fit mental 
A 
condition to make such a statement. It is therefore clear 
that the aforesaid dying declaration could be relied upon 
as the same was truthfully recorded and the said 
statement gave a vivid account of the manner in which 
the incident had taken place. [Para 32] (1013-A-C] 
B 
3. The further objection raised regarding, the 
.._ 
admissibility of the recorded dying declaration on the 
.,; 
ground that the signature or the thumb impression. of the 
deceased was not taken thereon, also is without any c 
basis. The deceased had suffered about 90 to 95 per cent 
burn injuries covering 90 to 95 per cent body sJrtace. The 
post mortem report also indicates that there w,as bandage 
in her thumb as it was bl,lrnt. In such a situation,· it was 
not possible to take her''$ignature or LTI on th~ dying 
D 
declaration. There Is ·1i1so no reason why a dying 
. 
~ 
"( 
declaration which is otherw,ise found to be true, volunta

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