The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of independently assessing the evidentiary value of multiple dying declarations and considering corroborating evidence, the condition of the deceased, voluntariness of the statement, and the possibility of tutoring in determining their credibility.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. BISHT, J.

1. The instant criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by the State assailing the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2004 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 225 of 2003, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short).

2. The facts as brought out in the case of prosecution are that:

(a) On 13/03/2003 PSI Ravindra Dadasaheb Jadhav, investigating officer, visited the Sasoon Hospital where Smt. Sadhana Bhagwan Bhandalkar (since deceased) was admitted for burn injuries. After satisfying from Dr.Mangesh Sundarrao Tandale (PW-4) that the deceased was conscious and well oriented, he recorded her statement/dying declaration. He then proved the dying declaration at Exh.17.

(b) On bare perusal of the dying declaration at Exh.17, it would be seen that on 10/03/2003 after she returned to conjugal home from parental home, she found accused-husband consuming liquor. Even the accused told her as to why she had returned, however, she overlooked the said comment. The accused then went out of the house. At about 7-00 p.m. to 7-30 p.m. while she was cooking, the accused-husband came along with Ashwini @ Mangal Swamy Kulkarni (absconding accused) to which deceased objected. She then alleged that when she started driving away Ashwini from her house, both of them picked up a kerosene can and poured on her person. When she started running towards bathroom, her husband set her ablaze by means of a matchstick. She started raising shouts, as a result of which neighbours gathered and her husband extinguished the fire by throwing water on her person. She further explained that earlier she had told police that the incident took place because of stoking the flames of stove as she was threatened by the accused- husband.

(c) It then appears from the record that Crime No. 79/2003 under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC came to be registered by Chatushrungi Police Station, Pune against the accused- husband and the said Ashwini @ Mangal Swamy Kulkarni.

3. PW-5 during the course of investigation visited the place of occurrence and drew spot panchanama (Exh.21) and recorded statements of witnesses. As the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries, he got the postmortem done and converted the crime from 307 of IPC to 302 of IPC and after completion of investigation PSI J.V. Mandlik charge-sheeted the accused.

4. To substantiate the charge against the respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. It is seen from the record that the respondent-accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and he denied all the circumstances as false.

5. Mr. Dedhia, learned APP, seriously assailing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal contended that the learned trial Judge wrongly disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses and as also failed to appreciate the dying declaration in its true sense. There being total failure on the part of the trial judge and the fact that an erroneous judgment of acquittal is passed, the same is liable to be set aside, argued learned APP.

6. When the matter was called out, none appeared for the respondent-accused.

7. At the very outset, it may be noted from the record that Postmortem report pertaining to the deceased is duly admitted in evidence (Exh.13) by the respondent-accused during the course of trial. The cause of death opined is shock due to burn injuries. Again, there is no dispute on this count.

8. In the present case in all there are four dying declarations. The first dying declaration is at Exh.20. The second dying declaration is in the form of oral dying declaration allegedly given by the deceased to her father when latter visited the deceased in the hospital. The third dying declaration is at Exh.11 recorded by the then Nayab Tahasild