SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Bom) 2347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, V.K. JADHAV, JJ.
Subhash & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2012
Decided on : 22.12.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Shri Joydeep Chatterji, for Appellants
Shri A.G. Magare, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State

Dying declarations must be reliable and corroborated by other evidence to form the basis of conviction.

Headnote:

Dying Declarations - Criminal Law - Sec. 302, 504 of the Indian Penal Code

Fact of the Case:

The accused were prosecuted for offenses under Sec. 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code for setting the deceased ablaze. The prosecution relied on multiple dying declarations and oral dying declarations made to the deceased's parents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found inconsistencies in the dying declarations and oral statements, leading to doubts about their reliability. The court emphasized the need for dying declarations to be subject to close scrutiny and found the evidence insufficient to form the basis of conviction.

Issues: Inconsistencies in dying declarations, reliability of oral dying declarations, need for corroborative evidence

Ratio Decidendi: Dying declarations must be subject to close scrutiny and corroborated by other evidence to form the basis of conviction.

Final Decision: The judgment and conviction of the accused were quashed and set aside, leading to their acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

The present appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are prosecuted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 and 504 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I. P. Code”).

The accused No. 1/Subhash Chavan is convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of the I.P. Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The accused No. 1 is also convicted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 504 of the I.P. Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

The accused No. 2/Pappu Chavan is acquitted for an offence punishable U/Sec. 302 of the I.P. Code, but is convicted for an offence punishable U/Sec. 504 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. As per the prosecution case, on or about 28th December, 2009 at 06.00 a.m. the deceased Sau. Sunita Sanjay Chavan had been to fetch water by means of Pohara (bucket) from well. The accused persons were nearby the well. They tried to snatch the bucket and rope from the deceased. The same was resisted by the deceased. Both the accused persons abused her. The deceased returned home. Both of them followed her. They abused her when she reached her house. The neighbouring persons convinced the accused persons. The accused persons brought kerosene in a plastic can from their house with a match box, poured kerosene on her person and ignited her. The complainant's saree caught fire. She received burn injuries. One Vinod Kaluram Rathod threw water on her person and also gunny bags so as to extinguish fire. The deceased Sunita sustained 98% burns. She was shifted to Civil Hospital Hingoli. Two dying declarations Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 29 were recorded. Exhibit 19 was recorded by the Police Officer, whereas Exhibit 29 was recorded by the Awwal Karkun of the Tahsil Office. It was also story of prosecution that the oral dying declaration was made to the father and mother i.e. P.W. Nos. 6 and 7. The prosecution had also examined one Vinod Rathod who had extinguished the fire. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the Sessions Court convicted accused No. 1/Subhash Chavan for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 and 504 of the I.P. Code and the accused No. 2/Pappu Chavan for an offence punishable U/Sec. 504 of the I.P. Code.

3. Mr. Chatterji, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the case of the prosecution rests solely on the dying declarations Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 29, so also oral dying declarations made to the P.W. No. 6 and 7. According to the learned counsel, if all the four dying declarations are read together, it would be clear that, the said dying declarations are inconsistent with each others. Each dying declaration is laying down a different story, which cannot be believed. The said dying declarations do not inspire confidence. It is the case of multiple dying declarations and when it is a case of multiple dying declarations, the inconsistencies would be vital to the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the material divergence will have to be considered. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dandu Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1999 SC 3255. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of P.V. Radhakirishana Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2003 SC 2589 to submit that, dying declaration is only piece of untested evidence and must satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is unalloyed truth to act upon. The learned counsel submits that, Exhibit 19 cannot be considered, as the same is made in presence of the father of the deceased. The father of the deceased has also signed the said dying declaration. Such a dying declaration cannot be relied. The possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out. For the said purpose, the learned co





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top