Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Tripura High Court

Shri Matir Ali vs The State Of Tripura on 21 May, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 TRI 193

Author: Arindam Lodh

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Arindam Lodh

                               Page 1 of 29


                        THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                          CRL. A(J) 41 OF 2017

       Shri Matir Ali
       S/o Manjir Ali,
       Resident of Kalacherra, P.S. Kailashahar,
       District- Unakoti, Tripura.
                                                         .... Appellant

               - Vs -

       The State of Tripura,
                                                        ....Respondent

                      BEFORE
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

For the appellant              : Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Advocate

For the respondent             : Mr. Samrat Ghosh,
                                 Additional Public Prosecutor.

Date of hearing                : 04.05.2020

Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order               : 21.05.2020

Whether fit for reporting : YES


                           Judgment & Order
(Arindam Lodh, J)

               This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence dated 16.05.2017, passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, Tripura, in

connection with Case No. ST 36(NT/K)/2014 whereby and
                               Page 2 of 29


whereunder the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with

default stipulation for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC

and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of

1(one) year for the offence under Section 417 of IPC.


1.    Preliminary:


1.1          In a brief outline, prosecution case was launched on the

basis of an oral statement of the deceased herself having suffered burn

injuries wherein she informed the Women Police Officer that about

one year ago one night at about 12/12-30 am when her younger

brother was out of station with his family to the house of his father-in-

law, the appellant Matir Ali suddenly entered her hut and involved in

sexual intercourse on the promise that he would marry her. Their

relationship was continued and she became pregnant. Thereafter she

asked the appellant to marry her but he declined. Under compelling

circumstances she approached the local Panchayat. In the Panchayat

meeting the appellant had denied the claim of the complainant, now

deceased. Thereafter, on 10.01.2013 at about 5/5-00 am, when she

was cooking in her room at that time the accused came and threatened

as to why she complained to the Panchayat against him and during

that time, the appellant suddenly pushed her in the "Chula" (furnace)
                                Page 3 of 29


of the kitchen. As a result, her clothes were caught with fire. She

raised hue and cry and tried to extinguish the fire by rolling on the

floor. But the accused had fled away. Hearing her cry the nearby

people had rushed to the spot and shifted her to Kailashahar Hospital.

She underwent treatment. While she was under treatment at the

Hospital, she lodged the oral ejahar. Due to the fire burn, the lower

part of her body including abdomen upto leg was burnt.


1.2         The oral complaint being reduced into writing, by the

Women Sub Inspector (WSI) of Police, Smt. Sampa Das of

Kailashahar Women Police Station, a formal FIR was registered under

KLS PS Case No.15/2013 under Sections 376/417/326/307 of IPC.

She was entrusted with the investigation and during investigation she

visited the place of occurrence, examined available witnesses and

recorded their statements under Section 161 of CrPC. Further, she

recorded dying declaration of the victim in presence of one Executive

Magistrate on 27.01.2013. However, the victim succumbed to her

burn injuries on 29.01.2013.


1.3         The wearing apparel of the victim such as the blouse etc.

was seized by the I.O. on 29.01.2013. Inquest report over the dead

body was prepared and the body was sent for postmortem

examination. She collected the report. On conclusion of investigation
                              Page 4 of 29


the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused

Matir Ali under Sections 376/417/302 of IPC. It is stated in the

charge-sheet that the appellant all along was absconding. On

04.02.2013, she submitted prayer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for

adding Section 302 of IPC and accordingly it was added in the case.


2.          Being committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge,

charge was framed under Section 376(1)/417/302 of IPC against the

appellant when he pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried.


3.          In course of trial, the prosecution had examined 11

witnesses altogether to substantiate the charge. On completion of

recording of evidence, the accused-appellant was examined under

Section 313, CrPC wherein he was given opportunity to bring it to the

notice of the Court about his defence against the incriminating

materials surfaced from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. But

the appellant only claimed that the prosecution witnesses had given

false evidence against him and he did not commit any mistake.

However, he declined to produce any witness on his behalf.


4.          Findings of the trial Court:


            After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial

Judge came to the finding that on the basis of dying declaration, the
                              Page 5 of 29


prosecution case against the appellant that he committed murder of the

victim deceased was fully established. Learned Judge found that there

was no material to disbelieve the statements given by the victim in

front of the witnesses as well as the doctor and Executive Magistrate.

The learned trial Judge further concluded that the appellant exploited

the helplessness of the victim lady. The appellant persuaded the victim

to involve in sexual intercourse on the promise that he would marry

her. The appellant had allured the victim that prompted her to believe

his assurance and surrendered herself to the lust and desire of the

appellant resulting her pregnancy. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge

convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated.


5.          In the appeal before this Court, we have heard Mr.

H.K.Bhowmik, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.

Samrat Ghosh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

the State-respondent.


6.          Submissions:


            Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the appellant had

questioned the reliability as well as the legality of the dying

declaration recorded by police. He submitted that there were multiple

dying declarations. There were contradictions. In the said dying

declarations the victim was found to emboss her thumb impression
                                 Page 6 of 29


which was not identified in accordance with law. Learned counsel

further contended that it was not established that the victim was in fit

state of affairs while she gave dying declarations. According to

learned counsel, the prosecution had failed to produce and adduce any

evidence what kind of medicine was applied upon the victim during

her treatment as that in a burn case the doctors usually prescribe such

medicines which are enough to cause the patient to sleep and such

burned patient always in a state of drowsiness leading them unable to

make to give proper statement.


7.            Per contra, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P. strongly

defended the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge and urged to

maintain the conviction and sentenced passed against the appellant.

He had drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-5, who according

to him, an independent witness being a patient of the same Ward

where the victim deceased was admitted and treated. He further

submitted that the FIR itself could be treated as dying declaration. All

the witnesses according to learned Addl. P.P. had testified that dying

declaration was recorded in their presence. The evidence of PW-7

could not be shaken. More so, PW-9 the Executive Magistrate who

was present at the time of recording dying declaration had no business

to tell lie against the appellant.
                               Page 7 of 29


8.           On the basis of aforesaid submission, we have proceeded

to peruse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as the

materials on record.


9.           Evidence:


9.1          PW-1,     Amitabha    Bhattacharjee   deposed    that   on

29.01.2013 he went to RGM Hospital for his personal purpose where

he found police personal of Kailashahar Police Station seizing one

blouse by preparing a seizure list. He put his signature on the seizure

list as a witness. He identified his signature on the seizure list which

was marked as Exbt.1 and the blouse of the victim was marked as

Exbt. M.O.1 on identification.


9.2          PW-6 is also a seizure witness and stated the same

version as deposed by PW-1.His signature on identification was

marked as Exbt.1/1 and he also identified the Exbt. M.O.1.


9.3          PW-2 is a formal witness. PW-3 Sri Sudip Dhar deposed

that while he was performing his duty as Nurse on 27.01.2013, the

victim was admitted with burn injuries and one police officer had

recorded her statement in present of one Magistrate. He was also

present at the time of recording of such statement and he himself

signed on the statement of the victim after it was recorded by one lady
                               Page 8 of 29


officer as per the version of the victim. He identified his signature as

Exbt.2. No material contradiction was elicited in his cross-

examination.


9.4          PW-4, Mangal Rani Debbarma also reiterated the

versions of PW-3.


9.5          PW-5, Nakul Das deposed that on 27.01.2013 he was

admitted to RGM Hospital as a patient. On that day he was also

admitted in the next bed. He deposed that on that day, one police

officer in presence of one doctor and Magistrate recorded the

statement of the victim and he signed thereon. He identified his

signature (Exbt.2/2).


9.6          PW-7, Inuch Ali is the younger brother of the victim. He

deposed that at the relevant time he went to Panisagar in search of

work and on his return he was informed by his grandmother that the

victim was carrying for six months. From the victim herself, PW-7

came to know that Matir Ali is the biological father of the baby in her

womb. At that time, the victim also told him that she surrendered her

chastity to the appellant as he promised to marry her. This witness

took up the issue with one Siraj Ullah, his maternal uncle who

arranged a 'salishi' (meeting) where his sister had divulged the story

of love affairs with Matir Ali, the appellant. He further deposed that
                               Page 9 of 29


the appellant denied the relationship and refused to marry her,

although, the village leaders gave a verdict directing the appellant to

keep his promise and marry his sister (victim). This witness further

deposed that on 10.01.2013 while he was in the house of his in-laws at

Balicherra he received a telephone that his sister had sustained burn

injuries and she was hospitalized. He went to RGM Hospital and

found that the lower portion of her body had sustained burn injuries

and on his queries the victim told him that while she had been cooking

in her house, the appellant Matir Ali went there and pushed her in the

'earthen oven'/furnace and fled away. She raised alarm when the local

people came and they shifted her to hospital where she succumbed to

her injuries after 7(seven) days.


9.7          The defence could not elicit any contradictory materials

against the statement of PW-7 made in his examination-in-chief.


9.8          PW-8, Layla Begam is the mother of the victim. She

deposed that the appellant being a co-villager used to visit their house

off and on. She advised the appellant not to mix with the victim but in

vain. One day when she was working in a brick field the victim told

her that she became pregnant as she surrendered her chastity to the

appellant on the basis of promise made by the appellant that he would

marry her. She further deposed that meetings were held where the
                               Page 10 of 29


village leaders had directed the appellant to marry her but he denied to

marry. She further deposed that one morning when her victim

daughter was cooking, the appellant pushed her to the flaming oven as

a result of which she sustained burn injuries. The victim had raised

alarm, villagers came and shifted her to the Kailashahar hospital.

During her treatment she succumbed to burn injuries. She further

deposed that when she visited hospital the victim told her that the

appellant was forcing her victim daughter to withdraw the case and

being refused he pushed the victim to the earthen oven. She further

deposed that the lower portion of the body of the victim was

completely burnt. She also identified the Exbt. M.O.1, the blouse of

the victim.


9.9           In her cross-examination, PW-8 stated that her daughter

was given 'talaq' by Jonab ali for the reason that she became pregnant

for which Jonab was not responsible. In her cross-examination she

further told that she used to pass her night at brickfield off and on.


9.10          PW-9, Animesh Dhar is the Executive Magistrate. He

deposed that on 27.01.2013 he was posted as Executive Magistrate in

the office of the SDM, Kailashahar and on that day as per requisition

of police and instruction given by SDM, Kailashahar he visited the

RGM Hospital. He further deposed that at that time WSI, Sampa Das
                              Page 11 of 29


recorded the dying declaration of the victim in his presence and on the

written dying declaration, he put his signature identified as Exbt.2/3.

He further deposed that in his presence the victim put her thumb

impression on the dying declaration as was recorded.


9.11        In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion put

forth by the defence that no dying declaration was recorded in his

presence and no thumb impression of the victim was taken in his

presence.


9.12        PW-10 Dr. Sandipan Bhattacharjee who was posted as

Medical officer at RGM Hospital, Kailashahar deposed that on

29.01.2013 he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body

of the victim and he opined that the cause of death was hypovolemic

shock due to burn wound. He identified the report bearing his

signature which was marked as Exbt.3. He further deposed that he

knew the signature of Dr. Debabrata Debnath as he worked with him.

PW-10 had identified the signature of Dr. Debabrata Debnath which

he put in the dying declaration of the victim. Being identified, the

signature of Dr. Debnath on the dying declaration was marked as

Exbt.2/4.


9.13        In his cross-examination PW-10 stated that it was a case

of 50% burn injury. He further deposed that he could not say under
                             Page 12 of 29


what circumstances Dr. Debnath put his signature in the dying

declaration.


9.14           PW-11, Sampa Das is the investigating officer who

deposed that on 14.01.2013 she was working as S.I. of Police at Irani

P.S. and on that day one Layla Begam lodged a complaint stating that

Matir Ali (appellant) set her daughter on fire and she was admitted to

RGM Hospital, Kailashahar with burn injury. The said information

was entered in GD Book vide GDE No.669 dated 14.01.2013.

Thereafter being instructed by the Officer-in-Charge of the P.S., she

proceeded to RGM Hospital with staff and recorded the oral ejahar

(Exbt.5) of the victim in her own hand writing. She also took the

signature of the victim on the said recorded ejahar (Exbt.5). PW-11

further deposed that she recorded the statement of two witnesses

namely Inuch Ali and Siraj Ullah under Section 161 of CrPC.

Thereafter she came back to the police station and submitted written

ejahar to the Officer-in-Charge. Upon receipt of the said ejahar the

Officier-in-Charge registered the case bearing KLS PS Case No.15/13

under Sections 376/417/326/307 of IPC and endorsed the case to PW-

11. The printed FIR was marked as Exbt.6 and the signature of the

O.C., Bidhu Bhusan Das being identified by PW-11 was marked as

Exbt.5/2.
                             Page 13 of 29


9.15        In her examination-in-chief she further deposed that she

visited the Place of occurrence at Kalachara but could not prepare the

site map for the reason that by that time it became dark. On the next

date, she visited the place of occurrence again and prepared the site

map with separate index (Exbt.7 and Exbt.8 respectively) and had

recorded statement of one witness namely Abdul Rashid. She raided

to arrest the appellant but he was absconding. On 16.01.2013 she went

to the place of occurrence and examined Layla Begam and recorded

her statement under Section 161, CrPC. She further deposed that on

subsequent raids the accused was also found absconding. This witness

further deposed that on 21.01.2013 since the condition of the victim

deteriorated she submitted a request to the Executive Magistrate for

recording dying declaration of the victim. Accordingly, the Executive

Magistrate Sri Animesh Dhar visited RGM Hospital and in his

presence she recorded the dying declaration of the victim at the

instance of Dr. Debabrata Debnath and after recording the same she

took the thumb impression of the victim in the dying declaration. In

her examination-in-chief she identified the said dying declaration

which was written in her own hand writing and marked as Exbt.2/5.


9.16        Thereafter, she deposed that Dr. D. Debnath and the

Executive Magistrate, Animesh Dhar also put their respective
                              Page 14 of 29


signatures on the dying declaration. She examined four available

witnesses namely Dr. Debabrata Debnath, Mangal Rani Debbarma,

Sudip Dhar and Nakul Das. On 29.01.2013 the victim died at the

hospital. She was informed about the death by Dr. Swapan Kr.

Barman then she visited RGM Hospital and found the victim dead at

the female ward and thereafter, she prepared inquest over the dead

body of the deceased. In the inquest report three witnesses namely

Siraj Ullah, Surfan Ali, Inuch Ali had put their respective signatures.

The inquest report bearing her signature on identification was marked

as Exbt.9.


9.17         The body was sent for postmortem examination through

one constable namely Rajib Dey who gave her the wearing apparels of

the deceased i.e. brown coloured blouse which was seized by

preparing seizure memo. She identified the blouse which was marked

as Exbt. M.O.1. PW-11 had further examined and recorded the

statements of three witnesses namely Amitabha Bhattacharjee,

constable Rajib Dey and Layla Begam.


9.18         On 04.02.2013, she submitted prayer to the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, for adding Section 302 of IPC and accordingly it was

added. She further raided to arrest the appellant but failed as he was

found absconding. After conclusion of investigation she submitted
                              Page 15 of 29


charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 376/417 and 302 of

IPC.


9.19           In her cross-examination, PW-11 denied the suggestion

put forth by the defence that the victim did not put her thumb

impression on the dying declaration.


10.            We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

evidence and materials on record. Keeping in view the submission of

learned counsel for the appellant that there are multiple dying

declarations    which   suffers   from   serious   contradictions   and

discrepancies, we have scanned the first oral statement made by the

victim which was reduced into writing by PW-11, the I.O. and treated

as FIR (Exbt.5). We find that the victim has put her own signature on

the said complaint. PW-11, in her examination-in-chief has identified

the signature of the victim which was marked as Exbt.5/1 without any

objection from the side of the defence. In the said complaint the

victim had categorically stated that she became pregnant due to sexual

intercourse with the appellant on several occasions. She has further

stated in the complaint that the appellant had promised to marry her

and only after that assurance, she surrendered her chastity to the lust

and desire of the appellant. The victim requested the appellant to

marry her but he refused. She was compelled to lodge complaint to the
                                Page 16 of 29


village leaders to which he got annoyed. She has further stated that on

10.01.2013 A.D. at about 5:00 am while she was cooking there was

fire in the earthen oven (chulah), the appellant suddenly entered into

her room and scolded her saying that why she informed the matter to

Panchayat, and threatened to burn her to death. At that instance itself,

the appellant pushed her on the burning furnace (earthen oven) and

with a match light the appellant set the lower portion of her clothes on

fire. She has further stated that she had tried to put off the fire by

rolling herself. On hearing her screaming local people had rushed to

her and took her to Kailashahar Hospital. She has further stated that

she sustained burn injuries from lower abdomen upto legs. Then, she

has specifically stated that the appellant Matir Ali set her on fire with

an intention to kill her. She has further stated that the filing of 'ejahar'

got delayed as she was bed-ridden and undergoing treatment in the

hospital. Her said statements were reduced into writing and it was read

over to her by the police officer and thereafter, she put her own

signature admitting the writings in the 'ejahar' as true and correct

versions of her.


11.          In our opinion, the said oral statement which was reduced

into writing by the police officer itself constitute a dying declaration.

When the victim had given her statement to the police officer on
                              Page 17 of 29


14.01.2013 the victim was full conscious as being mentally and

physically fit. Thereafter we have scrutinized the statements of the

victim made in her dying declaration dated 27.01.2013 (Exbt.2). She

has stated in the said dying declaration that the appellant was known

to him for the last one year and she used to stay alone. The appellant

used to visit her house. She has further stated that she was married for

10 years but she did not conceive and on 31.07.2012 her husband left

her. Thereafter, the appellant had told her that he would marry her and

by saying so he used to behave with her as like as her husband. She

has further stated that she also used to behave with the appellant as his

wife. One day she realized that she became conceived when she

requested the appellant to marry, he denied. Thereafter, she was

compelled to lodge complaint to the village leaders where the

appellant had denied to marry her. Thereafter, at around 5 O'clock in

the early morning when all were sleeping then the appellant had

entered into her house when she had lit the earthen woven to prepare

tea at that time the victim had told him that "if you do not marry me, I

will not withdraw the case". The victim has specifically stated that

hearing such statement the appellant had lit fire on her clothes and

pushed her into the 'chulah' (earthen woven) and the appellant ran

away. When she had screamed, Rashid Miah, Imam of the Mosque
                              Page 18 of 29


came after 10 (ten) minutes. Seeing such condition he left. After

hearing her cry local people had rushed to the spot.


12.          According to us there is no discrepancy between the

earlier statement of the victim as she had told to PW-11 which was

treated as FIR (Exbt.5) and the statement she made in dying

declaration on 27.01.2013. More so, we find enough consistency in

her statement that is very much relevant to the fact of the case in

respect of her sexual relationship with the appellant on the basis of

assurance and promise made by the appellant that he would marry her.

Further, the victim is very consistent to her statement that the

appellant had entered into her kitchen when she lit fire in the 'chulah'

(earthen woven) to prepare tea, threatened her to withdraw the case

and further the appellant lit fire on her clothes and pushed her into the

'chulah' (earthen woven) and ran away.


13.          Next, we find that her statement in the dying declaration

that her husband had left her has been corroborated by the evidence as

led by PW-8, her mother when she has stated in her cross-examination

that the victim "was given talaq by Jonab Ali". The statement of PW-

11, the I.O. that the incident of burn injury suffered by the victim was

first informed by her mother i.e. PW-8 has also been corroborated by

PW-8 when she has specifically stated in her cross-examination that
                               Page 19 of 29


she visited the hospital and lodged the information to the police

station as per the version of her victim daughter and she visited the

police station on the day the victim had sustained burn injuries. The

subsequent statement of PW-11 that on the basis of that information

she made a G.D. Entry to that effect and has visited the hospital when

the victim herself has narrated about the circumstances how she

sustained burn injuries has also been confirmed.


14.          Now, proceeding to determine the genuinity and legality

of the dying declaration (Exbt.2), we have noticed that PW-11 in her

deposition has stated that she was prompted to record dying

declaration of the victim for the reason that her condition was

gradually deteriorating. The question raised by the learned counsel for

the appellant that putting of thumb impression of the victim on the

said dying declaration by the I.O. casts a serious doubt and created a

suspicious circumstance about the genuinity of the said dying

declaration. We find no force in the said submission of learned

counsel for the appellant. From the deposition of PW-11 it has become

crystal clear that the physical condition of the victim at the time of

recording of dying declaration was serious and in this circumstance,

we do not find any infirmity to take thumb impression of the victim on

the said dying declaration. It is clearly written in the dying declaration
                              Page 20 of 29


that the police officer has taken right thumb impression (RTI) of the

victim. Further, there are witnesses who were the patients admitted in

the same ward adjacent to the beds of the victim.


15.          PW-5, Nakul Das has stated that he was a patient

admitted in the next bed of the victim on 27.01.2013. He stated that -

"when one police officer in presence of one doctor and Magistrate

has recorded statement of Asma, I signed thereon (Exbt.2/2) as a

witness."


16.          PWs-3 and 4 Sri Sudip Dhar and Smt. Mangal Rani

Debbarma were performing their duties as Nurse. They also have

stated that in presence of one medical officer and a Magistrate, the

statement of the victim was recorded by one lady police officer and

they also signed on the said dying declaration as witnesses. We have

noticed that PW-5, PW-3 and PW-4 have put their respective

signatures in the dying declaration which were identified by them

during their depositions as Exbt.2, Exbt. 2/1 and Exbt.2/2

respectively).


17.          Furthermore, PW-9 the Executive Magistrate has

categorically stated that on being requisitioned he went to the RGM

Hospital, Kailashahar to remain present at the time of recording dying

declaration. He has stated that the dying declaration was recorded by
                             Page 21 of 29


PW-11 in his presence and being satisfied he put his signature on the

said dying declaration. On identification his signature was marked as

Exbt.2/3. He has further stated that the victim has put her thumb

impression on the dying declaration as recorded. There is no reason to

dis-believe the statement of the Executive Magistrate, he being a

disinterested person and is a responsible officer having no animus

with the accused.


17.1        Taking into account of the submission of learned counsel

for the appellant that Dr. Debabrata Debnath in whose presence the

dying declaration was recorded has not been examined, we have

noticed that before recording dying declaration, the victim was asked

to furnish information about what is her name, age, profession,

residence, the name of husband and the cause of her admission to the

hospital. PW-10, Dr. Sandipan Bhattacharjee in his evidence has

categorically stated that the signature of Dr. Debabrata Debnath in

whose presence the dying declaration was recorded by the police is

known to him. The said witness (PW-10) has identified the signature

of Dr. Debbarta Debnath on the dying declaration. In this situation,

non-examination of concerned doctor should not be thrown out when

said dying declaration is found to be consistent with other

circumstances elicited from other evidence. From the answers given
                               Page 22 of 29


by the victim we are satisfied that she was fit to give statement

because all the answers she replied were correct. Moreover, we find

no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Executive Magistrate

(PW-9) as well as the depositions of PW-3, 4 and 5.


17.2         In Rabi Chander & Ors. v. State of Punjab

[MANU/SC/1478/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held

that for not examining the doctor, the dying declaration recorded by

the Magistrate and the dying declaration orally made to others need

not be doubted.


17.3         We have further noticed that in his cross-examination,

PW-10, Dr. S. Bhattacharjee who conducted postmortem examination

over the dead body of the victim has stated that victim suffered 50%

burn injury. This witness has categorically stated that the cause of

death was hypovolemic shock due to burn injury which is found to be

consistent with the report (Exbt.3).


18.          According to us, for a patient having 50% burn injury it

would not be impossible for her to give dying declaration when it is

revealed that the said patient breathed her last after a couple of days of

giving such dying declaration i.e. on 29.01.2013.
                                Page 23 of 29


19.          Apart from what we have stated hereinabove, according

to us, the post crime conduct of the appellant is relevant to point

towards the guilt of the accused under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

For convenience we may reproduce illustration of Section 8 of the

Evidence Act which provides thus:-

                           "(i) A is accused of a crime. The facts that, after the
               commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in
               possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by
               the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might
               have been used in committing it, are relevant."


20.          The appellant did not make himself available to the

police officer and his intention not to co-operate with the investigating

officer has forced us to draw an adverse inference against the

appellant. If he is not guilty and is not related to the offence, then,

why the appellant was absconding? In his examination under Section

313, CrPC, the appellant has simply stated that the incriminating

evidence as are surfaced from the statements of the prosecution

witnesses are false and in his explanation he has stated that "I did not

do any mistake". On all other assumption of the evidence and

materials on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant has failed

to establish any circumstances which can persuade us to suspect the

dying declaration (Exbt.2) only for the reason that the victim has
                                Page 24 of 29


given thumb impression upon the said dying declaration whereas she

has put her signature on the ejajar (Exbt.5).


20.1         Each and every dying declaration has to be assessed

separately and independently, where there are multiple dying

declarations in a case, on its own merits, as evidentiary value of one

cannot be rejected solely because of certain variations in another

dying declaration. In Ashabai & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2013)

2 SCC 224, wherein it is held that when there are multiple dying

declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and

evaluated on its own merits.


20.2         According to us, Exbt.5, the oral ejahar which has been

reduced into writing itself constitutes a dying declaration. The later

dying declaration (Exbt.2) is found to be well consistent with Exbt.5

which was treated as FIR.


20.3         In the case in hand, the oral complaint (Exbt.2) being

treated as FIR after the same was reduced into writing by the police

officer (PW-11) should be treated as first dying declaration for the

reason that it was lodged and made with promptness when the

deceased was in fit state of mind, abled and well conscious. She had

given vivid description how she suffered burn injury, and who was
                                Page 25 of 29


responsible for that. Further, she specifically mentioned the name of

Matir Ali, the appellant, herein.


             As per Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, such FIR

should be treated as dying declaration.

               "1. when it relates to cause of death. --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 person 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."

20.4         The Apex Court in Dayaram & Ors. v. State of MP [

MANU/SC/1523/2019: AIR 2019 SC 5739] while discussing the legal

aspect on this issue had observed thus:-


                          "This Court in Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of
                  U.P., MANU/SC/7075/2008: (2008) 17 SCC 337 held that:

                            17.... The report dictated by the deceased fully
                  satisfied all the ingredients for being made admissible as
                  dying declaration. To ascertain this aspect, we may refer to
                  some of the general propositions relating to a dying
                  declaration. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act deals
                  with dying declaration and lays down that when a 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, such a statement is relevant in every case or
                  proceeding in which the cause of the person's death comes
                  into question. Further, such statements are relevant whether
                  the person who made them was or was not at the time when
                  they were made under the expectation of death and whatever
                                Page 26 of 29


                  may be the nature of the proceedings in which the cause of
                  his death comes into question.

                            18. The principle on which a dying declaration is
                  admissible in evidence is indicated in the Maxim "Nemo
                  Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire", which means that a man
                  will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. Thus it is
                  clear that a dying declaration may be relating to:

                           a) As to the cause of death of the deceased

                           b) As to "any of the circumstances of the
                  transaction" which resulted in the death of the deceased

                           ......

20.....If we look at the report dictated by the deceased in the light of the aforesaid propositions, it emerges that the names of the Accused and the important features of the case have been clearly mentioned in the report. It contains a narrative by the deceased as to the cause of his death, which finds complete corroboration from the testimony of eye witnesses and the medical evidence on record...."

(Emphasis supplied) 20.5 Further, we have given our anxious consideration to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the dying declaration (Exbt.2) does not reflect that the doctor has given certificate about the status of health condition of the deceased. In this regard, in our opinion, non-certification of the dying declaration by the doctor is not always fatal to suspect its genuinity. The requirement of certification by a doctor is a mere rule of prudence to make it full- proof and to rise above from all suspicious circumstances. It is settled proposition of law that when on a reading of the statements as a whole, it appears that such statements are clear and specific and does Page 27 of 29 not suffer from any infirmity, there is no reason not to accept the said dying declaration in absence of any certificate by a competent doctor as to the mental and physical condition of the deceased. What is needed, the Courts should be satisfied that from the material on record it is safe to place reliance on such uncertified declaration [Ram Bai v. State of Chattisgarh, MANU/SC/0856/2002: AIR 2003 SC 265: 2003 CriLJ 441].

20.6 More importantly, we have noticed that PW-11, the investigating officer has followed the general guidelines prescribing that as far as possible the dying declaration should be in question and answer form and in the exact words or language of the decease. To remove any confusion, we make it clear that if for good reasons the general guidelines could not be followed, it is not obvious that it would vitiate or destroy the evidentiary value of the dying declaration.

21. Another important feature is that we have noticed that the dying declaration has been recorded in Bengali language [having knowledge of the said language by one of us , A. Lodh, J], it is found clear that the statements given by the victim have been taken down the way she has expressed herself while describing the incident. According to us the said dying declaration (Exbt.2) is certainly the best dying declaration which inspires confidence to us. However, we Page 28 of 29 make it clear that it is not the requirement of law that a dying declaration ought in all cases to be rejected simply because the very words uttered by the injured are not reproduced [Bhabanand Kakoti V. State of Meghalaya, 2008, CriLJ 194, (199) (Gau-DB)].

22. Further, conviction can be declared against an accused on the basis of sole dying declaration if it inspires confidence of the Court about its truthfulness, voluntariness and correctness. In Poonam Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 6 SCC 145 a four Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for convicting the accused. But the dying declaration may not be invalid solely on the ground that it was not certified by the doctor.

23. Considering the totality of the evidence including the two dying declarations (Exbt.2 and Exbt.5) which are both consistent with each other coupled with the evidence and the testimonies of PW-9, PW-3, 4 and 5, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Total chain of circumstances starting from the deceased's information to her mother Layla Begam (PW-8) who further informed the matter to her son (PW-7) leading to submit a complaint to the village leaders, and subsequently, suddenly entering into the kitchen of the victim by the appellant and setting her on fire and further, the dying declarations (Exbt.5) made to the police officer Page 29 of 29 (PW-11) in close proximity to the time of incident and coupled with the statements of the witnesses which is found consistent with the later dying declaration (Exbt.2) is found to be complete beyond any shadow of doubt. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, Tripura, in ST 36(NT/K) 2014 is affirmed.

The appeal being bereft of merit, is dismissed.

24. Send back the LCRs forthwith.

             JUDGE                           CHIEF JUSTICE