IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S. Waghwase, JJ.
Raju Rangnath Kolte - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2016
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Dying Declaration - Murder Conviction - IPC Sec. 302, Cr.P.C. Sec. 374 - The court analyzed the evidentiary value of dying declarations, emphasizing that they can serve as the sole basis for conviction if credible. It highlighted the need for consistency and reliability in such declarations, referencing established legal principles from previous judgments. The court found inconsistencies in the dying declarations presented, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt, ultimately influencing its decision to acquit the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Raju, was convicted for the murder of his wife Manisha, who suffered fatal burns. The prosecution relied on two dying declarations made by Manisha, which contained conflicting accounts of the incident. The case was brought to trial after Manisha succumbed to her injuries, and the prosecution alleged that Raju was responsible for her death due to prior ill-treatment and the circumstances surrounding the burns.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declarations were inconsistent and failed to inspire confidence. It noted discrepancies in the accounts provided in the declarations and the absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses. The court concluded that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the dying declarations were credible and consistent enough to support a conviction for murder under Sec. 302 IPC. Whether the prosecution established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that dying declarations can be the sole basis for conviction but must be consistent and reliable. It emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the declarations.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction under Sec. 302 IPC was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
ABHAY S.WAGHWASE, J. - The instant appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.], is directed by the appellant/convict against the judgment and order dtd. 27/5/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2014 by which appellant came to be held guilty and so convicted and sentenced for commission the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. FACTS IN BRIEF GIVING RISE TO THE SESSIONS TRIAL
2. Deceased Manisha was married to accused Raju around 9 years prior to the incident. Accused was a driver by occupation. According to prosecution, after a year or two, accused started ill-treating deceased Manisha and beat her after getting drunk. Because of such treatment meted out to her, her father PW1 Tarachand brought both of them to reside at Waluj and thereafter, at his own village i.e. Dhamori and they were put up in a rented premises owned by PW7-Kavita.
3. On 14/4/2014, Manisha suffered burns and was resultantly shifted to hospital. There she gave dying declaration Exhibit 43 recorded by PW10 PSI Vyankatesh Ranvirkar, on the strength of which crime came to be registered. While undergoing treatment, Manisha succumbed to the burn injuries and therefore, crime was converted from Sec. 307 to Sec. 302 of IPC. After completing all procedural formalities, accused came to be chargesheeted.
4. Case being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, it came to be assigned to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, who conducted trial and on appreciating the evidence, recorded guilt of the appellant holding that prosecution has proved that death of Manisha was as a result of burns suffered by her on being incinerated by accused husband. It is the above order of conviction which is now questioned before us. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of the appellant :
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. He pressed into service following grounds for questioning the maintainability, sustainability and legality of the judgment.
<WXY>i) Two dying declarations are inconsistent, involuntary and hence not worthy of credence.
ii) That, there is no cogent and reliable evidence in support of the accusations of ill-treatment or beating by accused after getting drunk.
iii) There is no evidence to show that accused poured kerosene and set Manisha on fire.
iv) No motive whatsoever has been established by prosecution in spite of examining as many as 10 witnesses.
v) There are no independent witnesses in support of accusations levelled against accused.</WXY>
On behalf of Respondent State :
6. In answer to above, learned APP pointed out that crime is admittedly registered on the basis of dying declaration given by none other than Manisha. That, in both dying declarations, she has consistently named accused to be responsible for the burns. Parents speak about ill-treatment and beating to her at the hands of accused. Independent witness like Special Executive Magistrate PW3 Ashok Nandagavali, who recorded dying declaration, has stepped in the witness box. As such, there is no infirmity in the dying declarations. Role of accused is squarely spelt out in both the dying declarations and therefore, it is submitted that, no fault can be found whatsoever in the findings and reasons assigned by learned trial Judge while convicting accused. Hence it is submitted that there being no merits in the appeal, it be dismissed.
7. We have minutely re-examined, re-analyzed and re-appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by prosecution. Admittedly crime is registered on the strength of dying declarations. Resultantly it is imperative for us to first visit the so-called dying declarations which are relied by prosecution for holding accused guilty. First dying declaration Exhibit 43:
8. PW10 PSI Vyankatesh Ranvirkar in his evidence at Exhibit 46 speaks about visiting Ghati Hospital, approaching doctor, handing over letter Exhibit 47 and on his request, doctor examining the patien
Jagbir Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if they are consistent and credible; however, inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to reasonable doubt and acquitt....
The reliability and evidentiary value of dying declarations, and the application of settled legal principles in determining their credibility.
Dying declarations may serve as the sole basis for conviction if deemed voluntary, consistent, and credible; inconsistencies must be assessed in light of surrounding facts.
Dying declarations can be the sole basis for conviction if found to be voluntary and credible, regardless of minor inconsistencies.
Dying declarations can be the basis for conviction if they are found to be truthful and voluntary; however, they must be carefully scrutinized, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and free from infirmities; however, significant discrepancies and doubts regarding its reliability necessitate caution....
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it meets the criteria of truthfulness, voluntariness, and absence of suspicion, as established by the Indian Evidence Act and relevan....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.