Back
VIBHA KANKANWADI, ABHAY S. WAGHWASE
Shahrukh Salim Pathan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through API, Newasa – Respondent
Key Points: - The court re-evaluates the two dying declarations and highlights inconsistencies and potential tutoring due to presence of a relative during the second declaration (!) . - The analysis emphasizes that dying declarations must be consistent, voluntary, and considered with surrounding circumstances; in this case, infirmities in the declarations undermine the prosecution’s case (!) (!) (!) . - DW1 Dr. Chandrakant’s evidence supporting accidental burns and not homicidal burns influenced the re-appreciation leading to acquittal (!) (!) . - The court notes delays between occurrence and recording of the first dying declaration (12 hours) and the elaborate second declaration; these affect credibility (!) (!) . - The appellate court finds infirmities in the trial court’s appreciation of dying declarations and reverses the conviction, acquitting the accused (!) (!) . - Prosecution's case heavily rested on two dying declarations; lack of prompt reporting and absence of corroborative eye-witnesses weaken the case (!) (!) . - Court cites established principles from Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay and Laxman etc. on dying declarations’ weight and testing reliability (!) (!) . - The medical evidence and the defense's evidence collectively create reasonable doubt about lethality and involvement of accused (!) (!) (!) . - Appellate order: acquittal of accused under IPC Section 302/34 and refund of any deposited fines; no change in muddemal disposal (!) (!) (!) . - Trial court’s error in not properly considering DW1’s testimony is identified as a ground for interference (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.) :
1. Appellants - husband, mother-in-law and sister of husband are taking exception to the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa dated 03-05-2016 in Sessions Case No.140 of 2014, by which all three stood convicted for offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and thereby came to be awarded imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN TRIAL COURT
2. Dying declaration recorded by the PW1 Gorakshnath Ghugarkar, Special Executive Magistrate was made the basis of registration of FIR bearing crime no.I-183 of 2014. Deceased Parveen gave dying declaration on 28-06-2014 that husband (accused no.1), mother-in-law (accused no.2) and sister in law (accused no.3) were continuously ill-treating her. On 28-06-2014 in the morning, sister-in-law Samina poured kerosene, while mother-in-law caught-hold of her in presence of husband who was instigating and abusing her. Sister-in-law Samina ignited matchstick and set her on fire. Brother-in-law Alim rushed to her res
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
