2009(2) Supreme 639
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Jaishree Anant Khandekar — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1094 of 2006
Decided on : 23-03-2009
Facts of the Case :
1. Appellant herein in the instant case was prosecuted along with five others for causing death of deceased. As per Prosecution case on a verbal dispute over split milk, appellant entered kitchen of deceased, her cousin mother in law, took the kerosene container and poured it on her shoulder and, thereafter, ignited flame. Victim sustained severe burn injuries but remained alive for 15 days after incident. Appellant was charged for offence of murder under Section 302 and other five accused persons were tried for having abetted commission of offence of murder by appellant. Trial Court while acquitting accused persons convicted appellant.Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
In a case of multiple dying declarations, if there is no inconsistency, the same are reliable. Deceased made five dying declarations at different hours . Both Trial Court and High Court sustained prosecution case primarily on basis of those dying declarations. Evidence in dying declaration had been corroborated and in various dying declarations which had been given by victim, in some of them, required rule of caution had been followed specially in Exhibits 58, 87 and 48 .Statements given in dying declaration was fairly consistent. There was also endorsement that same had been read over and explained to declarant. No dispute that declarant lived for more than fifteen days after aforesaid incident. Hence, the victim was physically in a position to give the declaration. Doctors also opined that declarant was conscious enough to make declaration and all the judicially evolved rules of caution were observed in the instant case. That being the position, no error found on the part of trial Court and High Court in finding appellant guilty and convicting her under Section 302. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. —
1. The tragic incident happened over spilled milk.
2. On 15.12.2000, Aruna, w/o Nagnath- accused No.4, received severe burn injuries in an incident which took place around 2.30 p.m. Aruna, the victim, was staying in her house at Dhangar, Moha, District Parbhani with her three children aged about 6 years, 3 years and 8 months respectively. The appellant’s husband was the nephew of Aruna and they were having the relations as cousin mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Admittedly the relation was far from cordial. Nagnath, husband of Aruna, was serving in SRP and not at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident. The appellant and her husband, who was serving as a teacher, were staying in another part of the same house as a tenant and the house was owned by Aruna. There was easy access from one house to the other. The incident is said to have occurred in the kitchen of Aruna. The appellant did not dispute her presence in the place of occurrence.
3. The prosecution allegation as unfolded is that on 15.12.2000, in the afternoon, Aruna kept a pot of milk on an electric hot plate in the kitchen, and at that time electricity supply was not there but the switch was on. Keeping the pot in that position, Aruna went to the terrace but when she got the smell of burnt milk, she rushed to the kitchen to find that electric supply had resumed and boiling milk had spilled over the pot. Seeing this, Aruna got annoyed and asked the appellant why did she not inform Aruna about resumption of electric current and the spilling of milk. To that question of Aruna, appellant became annoyed and responded in words which were rather offensive.
4. Further allegation is that the appellant did not stop at her harsh reply but entered the kitchen of Aruna, took the kerosene container and poured it on her shoulder and, thereafter, ignited the flame and ran to the terrace and declared that Aruna had received burns from electric current.
5. The victim sustained severe burn injuries which were estimated at 100% and was rushed to the Rural Hospital at Gangakhed and, thereafter, shifted to S.R.T.R Medical College Hospital at Ambajogai. In the course of receiving treatment, she succumbed to her burn injuries on 1.1.2001.
6. She was thus alive for 15 days after the incident. The statement of Aruna which was recorded by API Sk. Abdul Rauf at Rural Hospital, Gangakhed was registered as F.I.R. and on completion of investigation chargesheet was filed.
7. In all seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the Court also examined three more witnesses. Several dying declarations were given by the deceased-Aruna.
8. In this matter six persons had to face the trial for charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
9. The present appellant was charged for an offence of murder under Section 302 and the other five accused persons were tried for having abetted commission of offence of murder by the appellant.
10. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the charges under Section 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. The accused Nos. 2 to 6 were also acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C.
11. The appellant was held guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for four months.
12. It is an appeal by the sole appellant.
13. On 15.12.2000, Aruna made five dying declarations at different hours and the prosecution relied on them and it appears that both the Trial Court and the High Court sustained the prosecution case primarily on the basis of those dying declarations. Those declarations are as follows:
(1) Exhibit 48 - Case history recorded by Dr. Sangram (P.W. 2) upon admission at Gangakhed Hospital.
(2) Exhibit 58 - Dying declaration recorded by ASI Sk. Abdul Rauf and treated as FIR.
(3) Exhibit 52 - Dying d
Paramjit Singh & Ors.Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.
Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Paparambaka Rosamma and others Vs. State of A.P.
Sudhakar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Paniben (Smt) Vs. State of Gujarat
Mohan Lal and Ors Vs. State of Haryana
Sanjay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Maniben w/o Danabhai Tulshibai Maheria Vs. State of Gujarat
Shaikh Bakshu & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.