1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2006

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.