Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.
Shantilal Haribhau Karkele & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2002
Decided On : 21-12-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. A.B. Gatne, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.J. Salgare, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of independent corroboration for dying declarations and the adverse inference drawn due to the non-examination of material witnesses.
Headnote:
Dowry - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code 302, 498-A, 34 - The judgment discusses the dying declarations of the deceased, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the lack of independent corroboration. The court emphasizes the necessity of independent corroboration and draws adverse inference due to non-examination of material witnesses. The conviction of the appellant No.2 is set aside due to the absence of necessary corroboration.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Manisha, was married to the appellant No.1 and was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment and demands for money by the accused. She sustained burn injuries and made dying declarations before succumbing to her injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant No.2 based on the dying declarations and evidence of relatives.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lack of independent corroboration and non-examination of material witnesses raised doubts about the reliability of the dying declarations. It held that it was not safe to convict the appellant No.2 and set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitting the appellant No.2 of all charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the dying declarations, the necessity of independent corroboration, and the non-examination of material witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of independent corroboration for the dying declarations and drew adverse inference due to the non-examination of material witnesses. It held that the absence of necessary corroboration made it unsafe to convict the appellant No.2.
Final Decision: The appeal of the Appellant No.2 was allowed, and the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code were set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of both the offences.
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
1. Appeal is filed against the Judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar delivered in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2001. The appellant No.2 of the present appeal is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and she is sentenced to imprisonment for life. Similar decision was given against the appellant No.1 who was the son of appellant No.2, but he died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal is disposed of as abated. Both the sides are heard.
In short the facts leading to the institution of the present proceedings can be stated as follows :
2. The deceased Manisha was the daughter of Aadinath Tandale who is resident of Khargatwadi, Tahsil Asthi, District Beed. Manisha was given in marriage to the appellant No.1 Shantilal Haribhau Karkele on 13th May, 1999. The appellant No.2 is mother of Shantilal and appellant No.2 is resident of Tribhuvanwadi Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmendnagar. Some more persons were made accused in the case. The accused No.4 is the sister of husband of the deceased and accused No.3 is husband of the accused No.4. Accused No.3 and 4 are acquitted by the trial Court and the said decision is not challenged by the State. Deceased has not left behind any issue.
3. It is the case of the State that one year after the marriage, the accused persons started asking deceased to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her parents as vehicle was to be purchased for husband. Allegations are made that there was ill treatment from all the accused to deceased Manisha as their demand was not met with. It is contended that Manisha disclosed about ill-treatment and demand of money, during her visit to house of parent's. She had also disclosed that all accused used to give beating to her and they used to give abuses to her. The parents of the deceased had tried to convince the accused persons, but their conduct did not improve.
4. The incident in question took place on 03.01.2001 at about 11 a.m. in the matrimonial house at Tribhuvanwadi. Manisha sustained burn injuries. Information was reached to the parents of the deceased about the incident and Manisha was shifted to the Civil Hospital at about 1.00 p.m. on 03.01.2001. Manisha made first disclosure and she informed that there was ill treatment to her for demand of Rs. 25,000/- made by the husband and as his demand was not met with there was quarrel, she disclosed that during the quarrel, mother-in-law, accused No.2, caught hold of her hands and accused No.1/ husband of the deceased, poured kerosene on her person and he set fire to her. She disclosed that after starting of fire, mother-in-law ran away, outside and shouted to call neighborus. She disclosed that her neighbours came to the house and extinguished the fire and they shifted her to the Civil Hospital. Her one more dying declaration was recorded. She succumbed to 93% burn injuries on 07.01.2001.
5. On the basis of dying declaration, crime No. 04/20011 came to be registered in Topkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar. Police prepared spot panchnama. After the death, inquest panchnama was prepared and dead body was referred for post mortem examination. The statements of the neighbourers came to be recorded on 09.01.2001. Articles taken over during the investigation were sent to the C.A office and charge-sheet was filed against all the four accused persons. The charge was framed for aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses. All the accused took defence of total denial.
6. Trial Court gave conviction to husband and his mother on the basis of dying declarations and also the evidence given by the relatives of the deceased about ill-treatment.
7. It is not disputed that death took place due to burn injuries. The post mortem report is at Exh. 65 and inquest panchnama is at Exh.33, which are admitted by the defence. The extent of burns on left upper limb was 9% and it was 9% on right
