Case Name: Smt. Rajeshwari & Anr. v. State of U.P. (along with Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Vipin & Anr. v. State of U.P.)
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2019 (connected with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1220 of 2019 and 1221 of 2019)
Date: Friday, Sixteenth of October, Two Thousand and Twenty-Six
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Quorum: Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
FACTS
Priti had been married to Anuj Kumar for about three years and lived at her matrimonial home in village Asrasi, District Budaun. On 4.1.2017, she was allegedly set on fire by pouring kerosene oil over her by her husband Anuj Kumar, her mother-in-law Smt. Rajeshwari, her father-in-law Brajpal, and Vipin and Madan. She was taken to the District Hospital, Budaun, where her dying declaration was recorded at around 4:48 PM. Her father, Santosh, came to the matrimonial home on learning of her condition and the FIR was lodged at around 23:45 hours. Priti died on 5.1.2017 and the post-mortem recorded the cause of death as shock and extensive ante-mortem burn injuries. On 20.1.2018, the Sessions Court, Budaun framed charges against all five accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Sections 85 and 80 respectively, of BNS) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with an alternative charge under Section 302/149 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 103 and 190 respectively, of BNS). All the prosecution witnesses of fact, including Priti’s mother, sister, aunt and minor brother, turned hostile. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced each to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and one month’s further imprisonment in default. Aggrieved, all five convicted persons approached the High Court.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether a conviction can rest on a dying declaration when all the prosecution witnesses of fact have turned hostile, and the fitness of the deceased to make the statement is questioned?
- Whether Vipin and Madan could be convicted when they were not known to the informant or the witnesses, no test identification parade was held, and no witness identified them in Court?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 302 of IPC, 1860- Prescribes punishment for murder, being death or imprisonment for life along with fine.
- Section 149 of IPC, 1860- Makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for an offence committed by any member in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
- Section 304-B of IPC, 1860- Defines dowry death, where a woman dies of burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death.
- Section 498-A of IPC, 1860- Penalises cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
- Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Penalise the giving, taking and demanding of dowry.
- Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973- Empowers the Court to examine the accused so that he may personally explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANTS- The Appellants argued that the case was a false one and that they were innocent. It was submitted that the doctor’s statement, the Naib Tehsildar’s statement, the dying declaration and the bed-head tickets showed that the deceased was not in a position to speak. It was further argued that her hands were so badly burnt that the dying declaration bore the thumb impression of her foot. They also pointed out that no smell of kerosene was mentioned in the post-mortem report and stated that the deceased died in an accident and that the in-laws loved her. On behalf of Vipin and Madan, it was argued that they were strangers to the family, that Madan’s name was not even in the FIR, that no test identification parade was held, that no witness identified them in Court, and that the charges contained no description of either. Reliance was placed on Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2025 SC 2666.
STATE (RESPONDENT)- The Respondent opposed the appeals and argued, relying on Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 (paragraphs 16 and 17), that a dying declaration deserves considerable weight and once found truthful, needs no corroboration. It was submitted that the doctor’s statement that the patient was fit to give her statement and the Naib Tehsildar’s account of how he recorded it could not be disbelieved.
ANALYSIS
The Court found that Priti had died of burn injuries and a definite dying declaration had been recorded. It held that the dying declaration could not be disbelieved in toto merely because all the prosecution witnesses of fact had turned hostile, observing that witnesses may be won over emotionally or by material benefits, and that this possibility could not be ruled out here. It noted that the declaration was recorded by the Tehsildar after the doctor had declared the injured fit to give a statement.
On the identity of Vipin and Madan, the Court noted that Vipin was named in the FIR, and that both were named in the dying declaration. However, none of the prosecution witnesses knew either of them, no test identification parade was held, and no effort was made to establish their identity. The Court observed that it had to be conclusively established which Madan and Vipin, out of the many persons of those names, were involved. Hence, thumb impressions taken on the charge sheet cannot identify them as the persons named by the deceased. In contrast, Smt. Rajeshwari, Brajpal and Anuj Kumar were known to the informant, to the other witnesses and to the deceased herself, so their identities stood fixed and they had been named by a person who knew she was going to die.
JUDGEMENT
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Smt. Rajeshwari, Brajpal and Anuj Kumar under Section 302/149 of the IPC. However, the judgment and order insofar as it concerned Vipin and Madan was set aside as they were acquitted of the charges.
CONCLUSION
The Court reaffirmed that a truthful dying declaration, recorded after the doctor certified fitness, can sustain a conviction even when all the witnesses of fact turn hostile, but that it cannot fasten guilt on accused whose identity was never established through a test identification parade or identification in Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- T. R. AISIRI RAO
Read the Judgment copy below : Rajeshwari and Anr vs State of UP and connected appeals
