IMPORTANT POINT
If a dying declaration is found to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration and conviction could be sustained on its basis alone.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appellant set deceased, his wife, on fire by pouring kerosene oil in the morning at about 3 a.m. - Deceased had been got married to appellant about 1½ years before incident and was being harassed for dowry demand - Dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate in hospital in presence of Doctor - Dying declaration also was made before mother, brother and cousin of deceased - In all dying declarations deceased made consistent statement that appellant poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire - No reason to doubt veracity of dying declarations - Conviction was liable to be upheld.
       Held : In all these dying declarations, the deceased Shobhabai has stated that it was the appellant who poured kerosene on her and set her on fire by a matchstick and all these dying declarations are consistent with each other. According to Dr. Damodar, who had examined the deceased, she had sustained 88% burns which were deep. However, Dr. Damodar has stated that Shobhabai was speaking in an audible voice and it was not true to say that she was not in a position to speak. The witnesses all have stated that the deceased was at the time of dying declarations in a fit mental condition. Dr. Damodar has stated that Shobhabai made her dying declaration to the Executive Magistrate in the presence of Dr. Damodar and he has signed on the same vide Exh.32A. What was narrated was recorded by the Executive Magistrate.(Para 9)
       We see no reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declarations especially since there is consistency between all of them. We see no reason why the Executive Magistrate Govind or Dr. Damodar or the other witnesses should make a false statement about the dying declaration. There is no allegation of enmity between the accused and these persons.(Para 11)
       A perusal of the various decisions of this Court, some of which have been referred to above, shows that if a dying declaration is found to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration by any witness, and conviction can be sustained on its basis alone.(Para 16)
       In the present case, the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, the Doctor and the other witnesses is unequivocal that the deceased was conscious and was able to answer the questions. If some persons other than the accused had poured kerosene on the deceased and burnt her, there was no reason why the deceased should have thought of implicating the accused instead of the real culprits. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of the deceased. Hence we uphold the judgment of the courts below.(Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. - This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2003 of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench). By that Judgment the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant by the Second Additional Session Judge, Jalgaon by its judgment dated 24.8.1998, finding the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarding him the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-.

2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The appellant and the deceased Shobhabai were married to each other for about 1½ years prior to the incident in question which took place on 21.8.1997 at about 3.00 a.m. According to the prosecution, the deceased Shobhabai was being harassed and treated cruelly by the appellant because a gift by way of Mul was not being paid or given by the parents of the deceased Shobhabai after the marriage, which is a practice in their community, and on that count there was a demand of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant prior to the incident. It is alleged that the appellant had taken the deceased Shobhabai to the house of her parents and left her there with an understanding that unless she brings Rs.10,000/- by way of Mul, she will not return to her matrimonial home. However, the parents and brother as also the mediator of the marriage of Shobhabai with the appellant, somehow or the other, convinced her and brought her back to the house of the appellant. The brother of the deceased Shobhabai and the mediator also persuaded the accused person that they should not trouble Shobhabai and their demands will be satisfied within a short period. However, within a period of 2-3 days thereafter, the incident in question took place in the night at 3.00 a.m. on 21.8.1997.

4. According to the prosecution, in that night, prior to going to bed, the mother of the appellant had abused the deceased Shobhabai on account of not washing and cleaning utensils and also on a suspicion of theft of silver ornaments of the sister-in-law of deceased Shobhabai by the deceased. It is alleged that in the morning at 3.00 a.m. when deceased Shobhabai got up, the appellant quarreled with her and when the deceased came outside the house on a platform, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. The villagers gathered and extinguished the fire. Thereafter she was taken to Rural Hospital, Bhadgaon where her dying declarations were recorded initially by the Executive Magistrate in the presence of Dr. Damodar who endorsed it, and later by Police Head Constable PW6 Yanushka Tadavi in the presence of PW8 Lata Patil and the doctor (who endorsed it), in which Shobhabai named the appellant as the culprit. Thereafter she was shifted from Rural Hospital, Bhadgaon to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon where also she made dying declaration to her mother Reshmabai PW2, her brother Suresh PW3 and her cousin Dattatreya PW4, in which also she implicated the appellant. She succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.8.1997 at about 9.30 a.m.

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses viz., PW2 Reshmabai, mother of the deceased, PW3 Suresh, brother of the deceased, PW4 Dattatraya, maternal cousin of the deceased, PW5 Govind Pardeshi, Executive Magistrate at Bhadgaon, PW6 Yanushka, Head Constable at P.S. Bhadgaon, Dr. Damodar PW7, Latabai PW8, Adhikar Shamrao Patil PW10, the mediator in the settlement of the marriage of deceased Shobhabai with the appellant and Dinkar Ingale PW11.

6. PW1 is a witness on the scene of the offence and the recoveries from the said place, while PWs 3 to 8 were examined by the prosecution to prove the dying declarations recorded by Executive Magistrate at Ext.32 and by Police Head Constable at Ext.35. PW11 Mr. Ingale is the P.S.I., who has investigated the crime. PW9 was a witness on the point of ill-treatment meted out to the deceased at the hands of accused and his mother, but he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1134

IMPORTANT POINTIf a dying declaration is found to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration and conviction could be sustained on its basis alone.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
If a dying declaration is found to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration and conviction could be sustained on its basis alone.