Rama Krushna Roy vs State Of Orissa

RAMA KRUSHNA ROY ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF ORISSA ...RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Sole appellant, aggrieved by his conviction under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, has

preferred this appeal by special leave.

2. According to the prosecution, the deceased Santilata was the wife of

the appellant and married about a year prior to the date of occurrence and

they were residing in a portion of the house belonging to PW-1, M. Appa

Rao. A day prior to the lodging of the report i.e. 30th of June, 1994 the

deceased along with her husband i.e. appellant herein came together,

went in their house and closed the door. After some time, the landlord,

PW-1 M. Appa Rao heard screams of the deceased whereupon he went to

the portion of the house in which the appellant and his wife were residing

2

and knocked the door. According to the prosecution, appellant opened the

door and when M.Appa Rao entered the room, he found Santilata in a

severely burnt condition covered with a bed-sheet. The appellant came

out of the house and fled away. M.Appa Rao brought Santilata to the

hospital on a trolley-rickshaw and on being asked Santilata disclosed that

it is the appellant who poured kerosene oil on her and lighted the match-

stick with a view to kill her. PW-1, M.Appa Rao gave the report of the

incident at Jeypur Town Police Station on 30th of June, 1994 at about 12

Noon. On the death of Santilata on 1st of July, 1994, Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code was added. The deceased was taken to Sub-Divisional

Hospital, Jeypore where his statement was recorded by the attending

Assistant Surgeon PW-20, Dr. Bijayananda Padhi.

3. Police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet and the

appellant was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions where he was

charged for committing the offence under Section 498-A and 302 of the

Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty. In order to bring home

the charge the prosecution examined altogether 23 witnesses besides a

large number of documentary evidence including the dying declaration of

the deceased were exhibited. Three witnesses were also examined on

behalf of the appellant which included the appellant himself as DW-2.

From the trend of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and

the evidence of the defence witnesses, the plea of the appellant seems to

3

be that the deceased committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The trial

court relying on the evidence of PW-20, Dr. Bijayananda Padhi who

recorded the dying declaration of the deceased (Exhibit 18) came to the

conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the appellant as above. Said

conviction and sentence has been affirmed in appeal by the High Court.

4. PW-20, Dr. Bijayananda Padhi has stated in his evidence that on

30th of June, 1994 he was posted as Assistant Surgeon at Sub-Divisional

Hospital, Jeypore and on that date at 11.15 P.M. Santilata, the deceased

was admitted in the hospital with extensive superficial burn injuries.

According to him, the victim disclosed that her husband Rama Krushna

Roy poured kerosene on her night dress and set her on fire. According to

this witness such an entry was made in the bed head ticket of the

deceased. He has further stated in his evidence that the Investigating

Officer of the case made requisition for recording dying declaration of the

deceased and being satisfied he recorded the dying declaration in the

presence of the witnesses. He has proved the dying declaration as

Exhibit-18 which, according to this witness, was recorded in question and

answer form. Regarding the cause of death of the deceased he has further

stated in his evidence that her husband brought kerosene and poured

that on her body and subsequently set her on fire. The deceased died on

1st July, 1994. The dying declaration (Exhibit 18) is in question and

4

answer form relevant portion whereof reads as under :

"Q. What is your name?

A. Santilata Bihari.

Q. What is your husband Name?

A. Rama Krishna Roy my second husband.

Q Where are you staying?

A. I am staying at market.

Q. What happened today?

A. There was a quarrel between us for a silly matter regarding an ear-

ring. He was annoyed as I got the same. My husband is after my second

number sister Bidulata that is why the quarrel.

Q. Thereafter what happened?

A. He told me to leave.

Q. Thereafter what happened?

A. He poured kerosene and lighted me saying his line would be

cleared."

5. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that save and except the dying declaration of the deceased, there is no

material to connect the appellant with the crime. He submits that the

dying declaration (Exhibit 18) does not contain any endorsement that the

deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the statement. In the absence

of the same, according to the learned counsel, the dying declaration is not

fit to be relied upon. We do not find any substance in the submission of

5

the learned counsel. The fact that the deceased died of burn injuries has

not been disputed by the appellant. According to him, the deceased

committed suicide by setting herself on fire. Therefore, the fact that the

deceased died of burn injuries cannot be ruled out. PW-20, Dr.

Bijayananda Padhi has clearly stated in his evidence that at the time

when he recorded the dying declaration the deceased was conscious and

in a fit state of mind. This doctor is an independent witness and there is

no reason to disbelieve his evidence. As such there is no escape from the

conclusion that the deceased gave the statement while she was conscious

and in a fit state of mind. The dying declaration clearly shows that the

appellant had poured the kerosene oil and set his wife on fire which

ultimately led to her death.

5. We are of the opinion that the trial court and the High Court did

not err in relying on the evidence of PW-20, Dr. Bijayananda Padhi and

the dying declaration to convict the appellant. Appellant is on bail, his

bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the

remainder of the sentence.

6. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is

dismissed accordingly.

...............................................J.

(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

6

................................................J.

(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI,

FEBRUARY 8, 2011.