Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 415

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. A. BOBDE, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANR. – APPELLANTS
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 694-695 OF 2011
Decided On : 09-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellants : Mr. Uday B. Dube, AOR
For Respondent: Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Non-examination of important witnesses leads to non-corroboration of dying declaration.
(2) Defence of accused cannot be brushed aside.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/498(a) read with Section 34 – Murder and cruelty – Common intention – Dying declarations – Life sentence – Victim was suffering from 98% burns – She must have been in great agony and once a sedative had been injected, possibility of her being in a state of delusion cannot be completely ruled out – Endorsement made by doctor that victim was in a fit state of mind to make statement has been made not before statement but after statement was recorded – Normally it should be other way round – Combined effect of trauma with administration of painkillers could lead to a case of possible delusion and there is a need to look for corroborative evidence in present case – Defence was that deceased was not willing to go to village to look after her in-laws and she committed suicide – Defence cannot be brushed aside – Occurrence took place in kitchen and not in bedroom – None of witnesses from neighbourhood have been examined – Non-examination of important witnesses leads to non-corroboration of dying declaration – Best witnesses would have been neighbours who reached spot immediately after occurrence – They would have been the best persons to state as to whether victim told them anything about occurrence or not – Trial court was right in holding that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21)
       (B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32(1) – Dying declaration – Evidentiary value – Dying declaration is an extremely important piece of evidence – Where Court is satisfied that dying declaration is truthful, voluntary and not a result of any extraneous influence, Court can convict accused only on the basis of a dying declaration. (Para 14)
       Facts of Case:
       Instant appeals by accused are directed against judgment of High Court of Bombay dated 13.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 1991 whereby appeal of State was allowed and appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302/498A of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
       Findings of Court:
       In view of circumstances trial court held that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This finding of the trial court could not be said to be perverse. It was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The trial court, after discussing entire evidence in detail, had come to conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. High Court came to a different conclusion. Trial court was right in holding that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. These appeals by the accused are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 13.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 1991 whereby the appeal of the State was allowed and the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302/498A of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellant No. 2, Tarabai Dhanaji Dhaigude is the sister of the Appellant No. 1, Sampat Babso Kale. Appellant No. 1, was married to Sharada Sampat Kale on 25.04.1987. After residing for about one year at Thergaon, Chinchwad, they shifted to a quarter in MIDC Colony, Chinchwad. Sharada died of burn injuries suffered during the night intervening 08.07.1989 and 09.07.1989 in the wee hours of the morning of 09.07.1989. It is also not disputed that on the date of the occurrence, the Appellant No. 2 had come to stay at the house of her brother i.e. the Appellant No. 1. Burn injuries were to the extent of 98%. Sharada made two dying declarations – the first was in the nature of the information given to Dr. Sanjeev Chibbar (PW-5), who had attended upon her when she was admitted to the hospital and the second was a formal dying declaration made to Mr. Kamlakar Adhav, Special Judicial Magistrate, Pune (PW-2).

3. The prosecution story is that relations between husband and wife were cordial for about one and a half years. Thereafter, Appellant No. 1 started ill treating his wife since she could not conceive. It is also alleged that, in fact, he wanted to marry again even when Sharada was alive. For this reason, he and his sister had with common intention poured kerosene on Sharada and set her on fire.

4. The defence version is that Sharada belongs to a comparatively well-off family. She was residing with her husband in MIDC Colony quarter which had all facilities. The case set up by the defence is that the parents of the appellants lived in a small one room hut in village Lonand with no facilities of toilet etc. Appellant No.1 wanted that his wife should go to look after his parents. She was not willing to do so since material comforts like TV, WC, etc. were not available in the village and the parents lived in a very small one room hutment. According to the defence, on the evening of 08.07.1989, both the appellants requested Sharada to go to the village to look after the ageing parents. Sharada, who was sensitive, got upset and for this reason committed suicide. It was Appellant No. 1 who raised an alarm and tried to douse the fire by throwing water on Sharada. He requested the neighbours to call for an ambulance but when nobody could be contacted on phone, he along with one neighbour went to the hospital to get an ambulance. Thereafter, Sharada was taken to Sassoon Hospital, Pune where she was admitted in the Burns Ward. Unfortunately, she passed away in the morning.

5. The accused were charged and tried for the murder of Sharada. The trial court acquitted the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt mainly on the ground that the possibility of the deceased having committed suicide could not be ruled out. The trial court did not rely upon the dying declarations. On the other hand, the High Court came to the conclusion that there was no reason to discredit the dying declarations and held that dying declarations were totally reliable in view of the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5. The High Court held that the reasoning given by the trial court was perverse and thereafter, allowed the appeal. Hence, the present appeals.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was a very sensitive lady. She, as is apparent from the letters exchanged between her and her husband, was madly in love with him. She, however, did not want to go and live in a village, that too in a small one room hutment and being sensitive in na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 415

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAS. A. BOBDE, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANR. – APPELLANTSVersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENTSCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 694-695 OF 2011Decided On : 09-04-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Non-examination of important witnesses leads to non-corroboration of dying declaration.(2) Defence of accused cannot be brushed aside.

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. A. BOBDE, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
SAMPAT BABSO KALE & ANR. – APPELLANTS
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 694-695 OF 2011
Decided On : 09-04-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Non-examination of important witnesses leads to non-corroboration of dying declaration.
(2) Defence of accused cannot be brushed aside.