Jharkhand High Court
Binod Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 February, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.373 of 2003
[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2003 and Order of
sentence dated 20.01.2003 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions
Judge, Dumka in S.C. No.212 of 2001]
------
Binod Mandal, son of Sitaram Mandal, resident of village-Geruwa
Marani, P.S.-Jama, Dist.-Dumka
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate
Mr. Amandeep, Advocate
Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Tushar, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 17/02/2026 Pronounce On 26 /02/2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the above named sole appellant for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.01.2003 and 20.01.2003 respectively for the offence under section 302 of IPC passed by Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 1 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dumka in S.C. No.212 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is based on fardbayan of Lakhia Devi, wife of Binod Mandal (present appellant) recorded by A.S.I., Nokha Lal Yadav of Palajori P.S. on 28.05.2000 at 16:00 hours at State Dispensary, Palajori stating inter alia that on 28.05.2000 in the morning, the informant's husband, Binod Mandal sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her on ablaze, when she started crying, her husband fled away from the house. The reason behind the occurrence is that her husband was saying that he will solemnize second marriage with another girl. Therefore, the informant went to her parental home. It is further alleged that about 8 days ago, she had returned from her parental home to her matrimonial home along with her husband, Binod Mandal. It is further alleged that at the time of occurrence, except her husband, none of the family members were present. The informant (since deceased) has further stated that except her husband no other family members are responsible for this occurrence. The Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 2 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) fardbayan (Ext.2) was also signed by the father-in-law of the injured victim, namely, Sita Ram Mandal (P.W.6).
4. On the basis of above fardbayan of the injured victim, Palajori P.S. Case No.57 of 2000 dated 28.05.2000 was registered for the offences under sections 324/307 of IPC. In course of treatment, Lakhia Devi (informant) died at Sadar Hospital, Dumka, hence section 302 of IPC was added in this case. After conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer of the case has submitted charge-sheet against above named appellant for the offence under section 302 of IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.C. No.212 of 2001 was registered. The accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submission on behalf of the appellant
5. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the legality of conviction of the appellant has pointed out following points:-
(i) The appellant is innocent and the deceased had sustained extensive burn injuries, which was due to accidental fire occurred in absence of the appellant from his house. (ii) The appellant is an ice-cream seller and at the time of occurrence, he had gone to sell ice-cream and when he returned at the Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 3 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) night then he came to know about the burn injuries sustained by his wife. In the next day, his wife died in course of treatment. (iii) Learned counsel further submits that altogether 7 witnesses were examined in this case by the prosecution but none of the witnesses are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It has been further submitted that P.W.1, Katki Mandal is the father of the deceased and other witnesses of the facts namely, P.W.2-Urmila Devi, P.W.3-Dhodhiya Devi, P.W.6 Sita Ram Mandal and P.W.7-Badri Mandal are also not eye-witnesses of the occurrence. (iv)Learned trial court has committed serious illegality while basing the conviction of the appellant on alleged dying declaration (fardbayan) of the deceased, while she was admitted to State Dispensary at Palajori. (v) The fardbayan of the deceased, Lakhia Devi is alleged to be signed by Dr. P.K. Daradhiyar, who has not been examined by the prosecution to prove about mental and physical condition of the informant to be in a fit condition to speak anything in case of 90% burn injuries. As such, no examination of Dr. P.K. Daradhiyar and absence of any medical certificate about the mental and physical condition of the informant to speak anything is fatal to the prosecution. (vi) Neither any doctor from State Dispensary nor from Sadar Hospital, Dumka, who were engaged in treatment of the informant (deceased), have been Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 4 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) examined in this case to state that the deceased was in a position of talk, which makes the fardbayan of the informant totally unreliable and worthless. (vii) No motive for commission of murder of his own wife has been attributed and proved against the appellant and there are no other circumstances that the appellant had any love-affairs with any other girl or any kind of grudge or enmity with his wife to drive him to commit murder of his beloved wife. (viii) Learned trial court has also failed to consider that there are overwhelming circumstantial evidences to establish that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was not present in the house rather he has gone to sale ice-cream.
In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and based upon inadmissible evidence, which is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, this appeal may be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the following reported judgments:-
(i) Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. Vs. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695.
Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 5
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB )
(ii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Wakteng (2007) 14 SCC 550 Submission on behalf of the State
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has vehemently controverted the aforesaid points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that dying declaration of the deceased in the shape of her fardbayan was recorded by A.S.I., Nokhelal Yadav at State Dispensary, Palajori at the time of first aid in presence of the conducting doctor as well as father-in-law of the deceased. In the next day morning, the father-in-law of the deceased, Sita Ram Mandal (P.W.6) became apprehensive and his fardbayan was recorded by another S.I. Sanjay Kumar Singh with a view to save his son from legal consequences which could be treated as a statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. As such, it was not the basis of FIR. Admittedly, the deceased died on next day at about 11:30 am. Although, there were no eye-witnesses of the occurrence but there are clinching circumstantial evidences showing tense relationship between husband and wife so that the deceased went to her parental home and just eight days prior to the occurrence, she was brought to her matrimonial home by her husband. The burn injuries sustained by the deceased is also self-explanatory that only upper body was found extensively Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 6 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) burnt, which clearly indicates that it was not an accidental fire. The plea of alibi taken by the appellant was also not proved by any cogent and reliable evidence. The dying declaration of the deceased is free from any embellishment and wholly true and voluntary. Learned trial court has very wisely analyzed the incriminating circumstances available on record in the light of dying declaration made by the deceased and rightly concluded about guilt of the appellant. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference by way of this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
8. The sole point for determination in this appeal is "as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law and based beyond the weight of evidence available on record, which requires any interference in this appeal?"
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
9. Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the above point, we have to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record.
10. It appears that altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charge leveled against the accused/appellant.
Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 7
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) P.W.1-Katki Mandal is the father of the deceased. According to his evidence, about 1 ½ years ago in the month of Baishakh at about 6:00 am, while he was in the village Sainthiya, he was informed by his brother, Badri Mandal (P.W.7) about setting ablaze of his daughter by his son-in-law, Binod Mandal. He has stated nothing else rather admits cordial relationship between his daughter and his son-in-law.
P.W.2-Urmila Devi is a local villager of the place of occurrence. She has been turned hostile and expressed complete ignorance from the occurrence. Her attention has been drawn towards the statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded by the police which she has denied that she has stated before police that "after hearing hulla, she came out from the house and saw Lakhia Devi rushing towards outside of her house raising alarm that her husband has tied her both hands and set on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil over her body. She also attempted to extinguish the fire."
In her cross-examination by the defence, she admits that she heard hulla in the village that wife of Binod Mandal has been burnt and family members were weeping and Lakhia Devi was sent to hospital, where she died.
P.W.3- Dhodhiya Devi is also a local villager of the place of occurrence. According to her evidence, on the date of Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 8 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) occurrence, it was a summer season and morning time. While, this witness was working in her house, she heard hullah and went towards the street, where she saw the wife of Binod Mandal has caught fire and she became unconscious. She has stated nothing else. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and her attention has been drawn towards statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the wife of Binod Mandal was saying that her husband has set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil over her body, which she has denied.
P.W.6-Sita Ram Mandal is father-in-law of the deceased. According to his evidence, on the date and time of occurrence, he was working at the field. Meanwhile, his younger son aged about 6 years came to the field and informed that his sister-in-law has caught fire then he went to his home and saw that wife of Binod Mandal was lying unconscious. This witness brought her to State Dispensary, Palajori thereafter to Sadar Hospital, Dumka but she died in course of treatment.
This witness has proved his signature as Ext.8 over the fardbayan of the deceased. He has expressed his ignorance as to whether his fardbayan was taken by police officer of Dumka, Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 9 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) Police Station. He has also proved the signature on inquest report of the deceased as Ext.8/1.
This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution to the extent that he has stated before the police that his son, Binod Mandal after tying both hands of his wife sprinkled kerosene oil on her neck and set on fire so that she has sustained severe burn injuries.
In his cross-examination by defence, he has stated that his son, Binod Mandal proceeded from the house prior to his going to field for work and just after receiving the information of burn injury to his daughter-in-law, he brought her to Palajori, State Dispensary but she did not regain consciousness. This witness further admits that his son was informed then he returned at about 12:00 pm. P.W.7-Badri Mandal is uncle of the deceased and the brother of P.W.1. He has stated that the occurrence happened two and half years ago from his deposition. He came to know from a boy of matrimonial village of his niece that she has sustained burn injuries and was admitted to Palajori hospital. This witness went to Palajori hospital and saw that his niece was completely burnt and groaning from severe pain and told to this witness that her husband, Binod Mandal after tying her both hands and gagging her mouth by clothes put on her Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 10 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) kerosene oil and set her on fire. She also told that the incident has been told by her to the police. He further deposed that from the Palajori hospital, the injured was brought to Dumka, Sadar Hospital where she died at about 11:30 pm in the night.
In his cross-examination, he reiterates that when he reached at Palajori hospital, his niece was conscious but groaning due to pain. He stayed at hospital at about 15 minutes, thereafter she was brought to Sadar Hospital, Dumka along with her father-in-law, Sitaram Mandal. He himself has not informed about the incident at the police station because the statement of his niece was already recorded by Palajori police.
P.W.4- Dr. Ramesh Prasad Verma has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 29.05.2000 and found following anti-mortem injuries on her body:
(i) Extensive deep burnt over the whole of the body except both lower extremities. The total degree of burnt was 90 %.
Opinion:-
The cause of death has been opined due to shock and cardio/respiratory failure as a result of extensive deep burn injuries mentioned above. Time elapsed since death within 24 Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 11 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) hours. He has proved post-mortem report, which has been marked as Ext.1.
This witness admits that at the time of conducting post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, he did not find smell of kerosene.
P.W.5 S.I. Shailendr Kumar is Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 28.05.2000, he was posted at Jama Police Station. On that day, fardbayan of Lakhia Devi was received from Palajori Police Station through Ckaukidar 4/1 Ram Vachan Bhandari. He further states that fardbayan of Lakhia was recorded by S.I. Nokhelal Yadav, Palajori Police Station, which is marked as Ext.2 and there is endorsement by A.S.I. Shiv Kumar Singh for forwarding and registration of the case, which is marked as ext.2/1 and formal FIR is also scribed by S.I. Shiv Kumar Singh, which is marked as Ext.3. He further proves the injury slip issued in the handwriting of A.S.I., Nokhelal Yadav of Palajori Police Station, which is marked as Ext.4.
He received charge of investigation of this case and recorded the statement of A.S.I. Nokhe Lal Yadav of Polajori P.S., thereafter went to hospital and recorded the statement of Dr. D.K. Verma and also obtained injury report of Lakhia Devi. On the next day, he visited the place of occurrence, which is Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 12 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) situated at village Genua and it is allotted under Indira Awas Yojna belonging to the accused. He did not find any specific materials from the place of occurrence. In course of the investigation, he recorded the statement of Sitaram Mandal, Urmila Devi, Dhodhiya Devi, Katki Mandal and Badri Mandal. This witness has also found that on 30.05.2000, fardbayan of Sitaram Mandal was also forwarded from Dumka Police Station, which was scribed by S.I. Sanjay Kumar Singh and marked as Ext.5. He has further proved the inquest report of the deceased prepared in presence of witnesses by S.I. Sanjay Kumar marked as Ext.6. He again went to place of occurrence after death of deceased and alteration of case under section 302 of IPC and seized her burnt clothes, which was wearing at the time of occurrence. The seizure list is marked Ext.7. After finding sufficient evidence against the accused, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under section 302 of IPC.
11. The prosecution has drawn attention of this witness towards statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witness, Urmila Devi (P.W.2) wherein she has stated that after hearing hullah, she came out from the house and saw that Lakhia Devi was burning and raising alarm that her husband had tied her hands and set her on fire. She also attempted to extinguish the fire, which was caused by sprinkling kerosene oil. This witness Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 13 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) further states that witness, Dhodhia Devi (P.W.3) has not stated before him that wife of Binod Mandal was saying that her husband has set her on ablaze.
In his cross-examination, he further admits that the burnt clothes of the deceased was seized on 01.06.2000, he has not mentioned any mark or sign of smoke on the wall of the house of the accused. He further admits that seized material is lying at Malkhana of police station. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his investigation is defective.
12. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The accused in his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. has denied the occurrence and claimed to be innocent and also pleaded that at the time of occurrence, he was not present in the house rather he has gone to sell ice- cream.
13. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case as testified by the prosecution witnesses and also gone through impugned judgment.
14. It appears from perusal of impugned judgment that learned trial court has recorded clear cut findings that dying declaration of deceased does not suffer from any infirmity rather it is true and voluntary and free from any influence by others. Her statement finds corroboration from the evidence of Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 14 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) her own father-in-law, Sita Ram Mandal (P.W.6), Badri Mandal (P.W.7), uncle of the deceased and P.W.4, doctor, who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased regarding opinion about the cause of death. The statement of injured victim was recorded at the earliest opportunity in the presence of her father-in-law and the doctor, which was recorded by Sub-inspector of police and that is the basis of the FIR and there is no legal impediment to treat the FIR as dying declaration. The deceased in her fardbayan has categorically stated about motive behind the occurrence. The defence has led no evidence at all to prove the plea of alibi, and the burden of proof lies on the shoulder of the accused himself under section 105 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the learned trial court has held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his own wife by causing burn injuries and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
15. We have also appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence available on record, it is quite obvious that the basis of FIR is fardbayan of the deceased recorded at the time when she recently sustained burnt injuries and was brought to State Dispensary at Palajori. It is a very concise and brief statement containing the relevant material and not a detailed statement. Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 15
( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) The statement of the victim (injured), who subsequently succumbed to her burn injuries clearly goes to shows that in the morning, her husband sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. She started raising alarm and also rushed towards outside of the house. The motive behind the occurrence is that her husband was saying to her that he will solemnize second marriage due to that reason, she went to her parental home. She further states that about 8 days ago, she was brought from her parental home by her husband to her matrimonial home. She further states that at the time of occurrence, no one was present in the house. There is no role of her mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law in this occurrence. Her above statement was recorded in presence of father-in-law, Sita Ram Mandal (P.W.6), medical officer of Government Hospital, Dr. P.K. Daradahiya and recorded by S.I., Nokhelal Yadav. This fardbayan bears thumb impression of the informant, signature of her father-in-law, who has also admitted his signature and proved it as Ext.8 and the doctor of Government State Dispensary, Palajori (PHC)
16. The fardbayan of the deceased, who died on the next day in the night after making her statement, is a brief statement containing the genesis and manner of occurrence along with motive of the accused to eliminate her. This document was Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 16 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) never challenged or objected by the accused at any point of time. We also find another fardbayan of father of the accused, Sita Ram Mandal, which was later on received by the I.O. from Dumka Police Station, which may be treated as statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the said Sita Ram Mandal.
17. Now, we have to consider as to dying declaration of the deceased suffers from any embellishment, tutored or for any other reasons not fit to be take into consideration.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis against credibility of dying declaration made in this case, mainly due to reason that there is no medical certificate as to mental fitness of the deceased to make any declaration. The next question is that the injured victim was brought to the hospital by her own father-in-law in the morning but her said dying declaration was recorded after inordinate delay at about 4:00 pm, which cast serious doubt against any such statement made by the injured, who was suffering 90 % extensive burn injuries.
19. In order to re-appreciate the dying declaration of the deceased, we have to take recourse to principle of law laid down by Hon,ble Apex Court in some leading cases.
20. A question arose for consideration as to whether dying declaration loses its value in absence of certificate of doctor Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 17 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) regarding fitness of declarant. In the case of Maniram Vs. State of M.P. (1994) 2 Supl. SCC 539, it was held that "when the declarant was in the hospital itself, it was a duty of the person to record dying declaration to do so in the presence of the doctor and after being duly certified by the doctor that the declarant was conscious and in his senses and was in a fit condition to make the declaration. In the said case, the court also thought it unsafe to rely upon the dying declaration on account of the aforesaid infirmity and interfere with the judgment of the High Court. But the aforesaid requirements are a mere rule of prudence and the ultimate test is whether the dying declaration can be held to be a truthful one and voluntarily given. It is no doubt true that before recording the declaration, the officer concern must find that the declarant was in a fit condition to make the statement in question."
21. In the case of Ravi Chander vs. State of Punjab (1998) 9 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "for not examining the doctor, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the dying declaration orally made need not be doubted. The Executive Magistrate is a disinterested witness and is a responsible officer and there is no circumstance or any material on record to suspect that the Executive Magistrate had any animus against the accused or was in any way interested Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 18 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) in fabricating the dying declaration and, therefore, the question of genuineness of the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate to be doubted does not arise."
22. In the case of Harjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545, the Hon,ble Apex Court has examined the same question and held "as regards the condition of Parmindar Kaur, the witness has stated that he had first ascertained from the doctor whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement and obtained an endorsement to that effect. Merely because that endorsement was made not on the dying declaration itself but on the application, that would not render the dying declaration suspicious in any manner."
23. In the case of Paparambaka Rosamma and Others vs. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695 as relied upon by the appellant, it was held that "the deceased has sustained extensive burn injuries on her person. The doctor, who performed post-mortem stated that injured had sustained 90% burn injuries. The prosecution case was solely rested on the dying declaration. It was, therefore, necessary for the prosecution to prove that dying declaration as being genuine, true and free from of all doubts and it was recorded when the injured was in a fit state of mind. It was further held that in absence of a medical certification that the injured was fit state of mind at the time of making Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 19 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) declaration, it would be very much risky to accept the subjective satisfaction of magistrate who opined that the injured was in fit state of mind at the time of making a declaration. The certificate appended to dying declaration at the end by the doctor did not comply with the requirement inasmuch as the doctor had failed to certify that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of recording the dying declaration. The certificate of the said expert at the end only stated that "patient is conscious while recording the statement". In medical science two stages namely conscious and a fit state of mind are distinct and are not synonymous. One may be conscious but not necessarily in a fit state of mind. This distinction was overlooked by the courts below. In view of this material omissions, it would not be safe to accept the dying declaration as true and genuine and has made when the injured was in a fit state of mind. Apart from these serious lacunas, there were some more infirmities in dying declaration. Therefore, it was difficult to accept the same."
24. In the case of Paras Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Bihar (1999) 2 SCC 126, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the statement of a deceased recorded by the police officer in a routine manner as a complaint and not as a dying declaration can be taken as a dying declaration after the death of injured if he was found to Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 20 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) be in a fit state of health to make a statement. If the dying declaration is recorded by Investigating Officer, the same can be relied upon if the evidence of prosecution witness is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was conscious and he was removed to the hospital and he was in a fit state of health to make a statement." In the instant case, the position appears to be different.
25. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Wakteng (2007) 14 SCC 550, it was held that "while great solemnity and sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lie or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person but the court has to be careful to ensure that the statement was not the result of either tutoring, promoting or a product of imagination. It is, therefore, essential that court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement, had clear capacity to observe and identify the assailant that he was making the statement without any influence or rancour. Once the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary and not suffering from any infirmity can be sole basis for conviction without any corroboration."
26. In the instant case, we find that the statement of the deceased was recorded while she was brought severely injured through Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 21 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) burn injuries to State Dispensary (PHC). It is admitted position that at the time of admitting the informant, she was brought by her own father-in-law, Sita Ram Mandal. The statement of the injured was not recorded as a dying declaration but rather First Information Report about the incident. Her fardbayan was recorded by the S.I. of police Nokehlal Yadav in presence of her father-in-law and treating medical officer and all have put their signature on the said statement. In a very concise manner, the informant states that she was set on ablaze by pouring kerosene oil on her body by her husband. Her husband was intending to solemnize second marriage, hence, she went to her parental home but eight days prior to the occurrence, she was brought by her husband to matrimonial home and set on ablaze. She has specifically stated that there is no role of her mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law in this incident. It is quite obvious from the evidence of witnesses, who are near and dear to the deceased, that father (P.W.1) arrived on the next day, her uncle (P.W.7) arrived on the same day but by that time, her statement was already recorded by the police and other witnesses of facts are local villagers of the place of occurrence. Therefore, there is no reason to raise any doubt against truth and voluntariness of the statement of the injured victim. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 22 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) was suffering from any embellishment, tutoring, prompting or any other unwarranted reasons to make such statement.
27. On the basis of statement of injured victim, FIR was registered against the sole accused (appellant). It is also settled law that First Information Report lodged by any injured person, who subsequently dies, can be treated as a dying declaration under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act (now section 26 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Such an FIR is considered to be substantive evidence, often requiring no further corroboration, if it clearly describes the circumstances of the death. The brief statement of the victim (Ext.2) directly relates to cause of her death and the circumstances under which she subsequently died. So far, fit mental condition of the informant at the time of making fardbayan is concerned, the presence of doctor and father-in-law of the informant (deceased), who has been examined as P.W.6 by the prosecution, has not disputed in any manner to the said information while being recorded by the police officer or any time afterwards, which also fortifies the statement of the victim to be voluntarily made in a fit condition of mind and body.
28. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order for taking a different view. It appears that learned trial court Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 23 ( 2026:JHHC:5652-DB ) has very wisely and aptly considered the overall aspects of the case and also the genuineness of the dying declaration of deceased and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellant. We concur with the findings recorded by the learned trial court and do not find any merits in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
29. The appellant is on bail, thus his bail bond is cancelled and the appellant is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of the judgment to suffer the sentence awarded to him, failing which, learned trial court shall take all coercive steps for taking into custody and sending the appellant to jail for sustaining the sentence awarded to him.
30. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
31. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 26 /02 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Cr. A (D.B.) No.373 of 2003 24