Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of a woman and her family for the murder of Naeem Khan, the deceased. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, which was primarily based on the dying declaration of the deceased. Naeem's statement revealed that he was set on fire by his wife and in-laws following a quarrel that erupted after he sold his wife's ornaments to raise money.

The court, presided over by Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra, found the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder by setting Naeem on fire. The court emphasised that the dying declaration was reliable, consistent, and supported by corroborative evidence, including medical records and forensic findings.

The case stemmed from an incident on June 9, 2012, when Naeem visited his in-laws' house in Bhopal to bring his wife back home. His wife told him she would return later in the evening. When Naeem returned at 7:00 pm, a heated argument ensued between him and his mother-in-law, Chhotibai, over the sale of his wife's ornaments. Naeem admitted to selling the ornaments due to a financial need, which escalated the altercation. During the dispute, Shahid Khan (the brother-in-law) pushed Naeem, causing him to fall in the bathroom. At this point, Samreen (the sister-in-law) allegedly poured petrol on Naeem, while juvenile Afreen set him on fire by throwing a lit matchstick.

Naeem, engulfed in flames, ran out to the street, where a bystander doused him with water and called for an ambulance. The police recorded his statement at the hospital, and his dying declaration was taken by both the Executive Magistrate and the Investigating Officer. Based on his statement, a case was registered against the accused for attempted murder, which was later converted to a murder case following Naeem's death during treatment.

The appellants, represented by Advocate Ram Suphal Verma, argued that Naeem had falsely implicated them, asserting that he had been pressuring his wife, Amreen, for dowry. According to the wife and her family, Naeem had already received ₹4,00,000 from them, which he used to buy a plot, and was now demanding an additional ₹6,50,000 to build a house. It was claimed that when they refused, Naeem threatened to falsely accuse them. It was further alleged that Naeem set himself on fire as an act of coercion, and he also lied in his dying declaration.

The prosecution, represented by the Government Advocate Yogesh Dhande, argued that the trial court's conviction was based on strong evidence, especially the dying declaration, which was deemed reliable and consistent. It was contended that minor contradictions in witness statements did not affect the core evidence and dismissed the appellant's theory as speculative, urging the High Court to uphold the trial court's verdict.

The court placed significant emphasis on the credibility of the dying declaration, noting that Naeem's statement was recorded by a competent magistrate, the Tahsildar, who had confirmed with the attending physician that Naeem was mentally fit to make the declaration. In his dying declaration, Naeem explicitly stated that his in-laws, including his mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, had attacked him, poured petrol over him, and set him ablaze after a dispute. The court stated, “the dying declaration is corroborated by other prosecution evidence and is proved beyond the reasonable doubt, that the dying declaration is trustworthy inspires confidence of this Court.”

The court also referred to precedents including the cases of Jai Karan Vs. State of (N.C.T. Delhi), Shaikah Bakshu and others Vs. State of Mahrashtra, Abhishek Sharma Vs. State, Kamla Vs. State of Punjab, and Sanju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, to highlight that a dying declaration could serve as a sole basis for conviction if it is found to be trustworthy and free from suspicion.

The court noted that the statements made by Naeem were consistent and detailed, leaving no ambiguity regarding the involvement of the appellants. The court also found the witnesses' testimonies, claiming Naeem had self-immolated, to be unreliable, noting discrepancies and contradictions in their accounts.

Further, the forensic evidence also leaned in favour of the prosecution as a spot inspection revealed traces of petrol in the house where the incident occurred, contradicting the appellant's claim that Naeem had set himself on fire outside. The court also noted the appellants' suspicious conduct, observing that none of Naeem's in-laws attempted to help him or take him to the hospital despite being present at the scene.

As a result, the court dismissed the appeal finding it devoid of merits and affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

 

Cause Title: CHHOTI BAI @ RANI B AND OTHERS v THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [CRA-916-2015]