Dying Declaration Must Inspire Full Confidence”: Orissa High Court Acquits Sunita Mundari in Husband’s Murder Case

Conviction under Section 302 IPC overturned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and doubts over key evidence.

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Orissa has acquitted Sunita Mundari, previously convicted for the murder of her husband, Mangal Mundari. The court, comprising Justices S.K. Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash, highlighted several inconsistencies in witness testimonies and questioned the reliability of the dying declaration attributed to the deceased. The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence in securing a conviction, especially in cases relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Sunita Mundari was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of her husband, Mangal Mundari, on the night of June 27-28, 2011, in their village of Jhirpani. The prosecution’s case was primarily built on the dying declaration of Mangal Mundari and the recovery of a plastic jerrycan with kerosene, alleged to have been used by Sunita to set her husband on fire.

The court scrutinized the testimony of Laxmi Badaik (P.W.15), the second wife of the deceased, who reported the dying declaration. The court noted significant discrepancies in her statements and highlighted that Mangal’s son, Siki (P.W.7), who was present at the scene, did not corroborate the dying declaration. “The evidence of P.W.7 is totally silent regarding any dying declaration being made by the deceased either at the spot or at any place till he breathed his last,” the court observed.

The prosecution claimed that a plastic jerrycan containing kerosene was recovered based on Sunita’s statement. However, the court found discrepancies regarding the quantity of kerosene reported and the visibility of the jerrycan. “The jerrycan was lying in an open and accessible place and had not remained out of visibility of others, in normal circumstances,” the court noted, rendering the recovery statement inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court evaluated the motive suggested by the prosecution, which was jealousy due to the deceased’s preference for his second wife. However, it found the motive insufficient to establish guilt. The court also noted Sunita’s conduct during the incident, which was inconsistent with that of a perpetrator. “The appellant’s conduct of attempting to assist the deceased and weeping at the scene proves her non-involvement in the crime,” the court remarked.

Justice S.K. Sahoo stated, “The circumstances which are appearing on record are not clinching and they do not form a complete chain so as to come to a conclusion with certainty that the appellant is the author of the crime.”

The High Court’s decision to overturn the conviction of Sunita Mundari underscores the necessity of reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases. This judgment highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence, thereby preventing miscarriages of justice. The ruling Is expected to influence future cases, particularly those relying on circumstantial evidence and dying declarations.

Date of Decision: July 4, 2024

Sunita Mundari v. State of Odisha