Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
Surendra Rudra Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 2015
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Dying Declarations - Criminal Law - Cr.P.C. 235(2), IPC 302, IPC 498-A - The court discussed the legality of the judgment and order convicting the appellant under Cr.P.C. 235(2) and IPC 302 and 498-A. The dying declarations were recorded and examined, but due to contradictory evidence and serious inconsistencies, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellant's conviction under Cr.P.C. 235(2) and IPC 302 and 498-A for the murder of his wife based on two dying declarations. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious inconsistencies in the dying declarations and witness testimonies, leading to the rejection of the dying declarations and the benefit of doubt being extended to the appellant. The court also noted that the circumstantial evidence did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the dying declarations, witness testimonies, and circumstantial evidence, leading to the question of whether the appellant could be convicted for the murder of his wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the rejection of the dying declarations due to contradictions and inconsistencies, as well as the lack of sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court quashed the judgment and order convicting the appellant and acquitted him from the charges of murder and IPC 498-A, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant and ordering his immediate release from jail.
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. This Appeal questions the legality of Judgment and Order dated 14th/16th October, 2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay (for short “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2013 convicting Appellant under Section 235(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof to suffer further imprisonment for 6 months. Appellant is also convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to suffer further imprisonment for 6 months; both sentences to run concurrently.
2. The facts which emerge from the record for consideration are as follows:
2.2. On 09.10.2012, Appellant returned home under the influence of liquor and quarreled with Soni. She questioned him about having money to consume liquor and not giving her money to purchase chappal for their children. Appellant being annoyed assaulted her with fist and kick blows. Soni was annoyed and told Appellant to kill her once and for all, upon which Appellant closed the door, doused Soni with kerosene and set her ablaze with a matchstick. Appellant thereafter rushed out of the house along with the children. Neighbors rushed to help Soni and extinguished the fire. Appellant reentered the house and took her to Bhagwati Hospital by auto rickshaw and got her admitted. Soni was admitted to the hospital on 09.10.2012 at about 03:30 p.m. and succumbed to the burn injuries on 13.10.2012 between 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.
3. As stated two dying declarations were recorded. First dying declaration was recorded on 09.10.2012 by PW-9 first Investigation Officer (for short “IO”) immediately on her admission to the hospital whereas second dying declaration was recorded on 13.10.2012 by PW-10 - IO in the presence of PW-4 Special Executive Officer. The second dying declaration bears endorsement of PW-2 Doctor Hemant Sanghvi who was treating Soni.
4. Spot panchanama was prepared by PW-9 - IO vide Exh.22. Articles were seized from the spot of incident and sent for forensic investigation and C.A. Report. After demise of Soni, her dead body was sent for autopsy and P.M. report (Exh.9) was obtained. Statements of witnesses were recorded and investigation completed after which charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai.
5. Since the charge under Section 302 is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Charge was framed below Exh.2 under Sections 498A, 302, 504 and 506 IPC. It read out and explained in vernacular to Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was that he had been falsely implicated in the crime.
6. To substantiate prosecution case, 11 witnesses were examined. PW-1 Dr. Dattu Varade carried out autopsy and prepared the P.M. Report. PW-2 and PW-3 are doctors Hemant Sanghvi and Dr. Dnaneshwar Mohare who treated Soni while she was admitted in the hospital. PW-4 is the Special Executive Officer in whose presence the second dying declaration dated 13.10.2012 was recorded by PW-10 - IO and was endorsed by PW-2 Dr. Sanghvi. PW-6 and PW-7 are neighbours of Appellant. PW-8 is
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
