The court ruled that dying declarations cannot solely establish guilt, especially when there are severe doubts about the deceased's capacity to make reliable statements due to critical burn injuries.

JUDGMENT

Milind N. Jadhav, J. - Con?rmation Case No. 4 of 2019 arises out of the Reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar for con?rmation of the death sentence awarded to Guddu Krish Yadav, respondent ('accused') by Judgment & Order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, " IPC "). The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-

"1. The accused Guddu Krish Yadav is hereby convicted Under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable Unde Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for murder of Rajkumar Baliram Rohidas and sentenced to death and be hanged by the neck till he is dead, subject to con?rmation by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay.

2. The accused is hereby convicted Under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable Under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for murder of Geetadevi Rajkumar Rohidas and sentenced to death and be hanged by the neck till he is dead, subject to con?rmation by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay.

3. The muddemal articles, the samples of acid and sample of burnt cloths pieces articles A, B & C, the shawl and saree articles D & E be destroyed after the period of one year from the date of order of Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in con?rmation proceeding and in case of appeal if any by the parties as per order in appeal.

4. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Both the sentences awarded to the accused shall remain suspended till the con?rmation by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay.

6. Death sentences against accused shall not be executed unless it is con?rmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

7. In view of provision of Section 28 (2) of Cr.P.C. entire proceeding of this case along with muddemal property be sent to the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay for con?rmation of the sentences against accused at the earliest.

8. The District Legal Services Authority, Thane is hereby recommended to determine and pay the compensation to the victims who are dependents of Rajkumar and Geetadevi i.e. their sons Rajan Rajkumar Rohidas, Dipesh Rajkumar Rohidas and Shashi Rajkumar Rohidas. The amount of compensation shall be as the D.L.S.A. Thane deems ?t.

9. The jail authority is hereby directed to take the note of this order.

10. The accused is hereby informed that he is entitled to prefer an appeal against this judgment and order within the statutory period of appeal i.e. within 30 days.

11. Issuance of certi?ed copy of judgment is expedited.

12. Copy of judgment be provided free of costs to the accused."

2. A Crime bearing Crime No. I-240/2015 came to be registered under Section 302 IPC with the Boisar Police Station on 06.11.2015 at 2:30 a.m.

3. According to the prosecution, the case is based on ocular evidence, circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, forensic evidence and above all on multiple dying declarations of both the deceased. After considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing the prosecution and defence on merits of the case as well as on the point of sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar by the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2019 arrived at the conclusion that the present case of acid attack leading to the double murder of Rajkumar and Geetadevi is a unique case beyond imagination and a crime of such a nature which is undeserving of any sympathy or mercy. The Trial court concluded that the present case fell in the category of the rarest of rare c