Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 223

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALEHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
DOLI LEDHA RAVIDAS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
APEAL/741/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Uday P. Warunjikar, Sonali R. Chavan
For the Respondents: Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer

A dying declaration, if found credible and voluntary, can solely support a conviction without corroboration. Additionally, the recovery of incriminating material from an open place remains admissible if the location was concealed and within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, rather than being ordinarily visible to the public.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Offence of murder - Admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declaration - Principles governing discovery of facts - Adverse inference from failure to explain incriminating circumstances.

(B) Dying declaration - There is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration; if the court is satisfied that the statement is true, voluntary, and free from embellishment, it can form the sole basis for conviction (Paras 12, 29).

(C) Discovery of evidence - A recovery pursuant to the statement of an accused is not rendered inadmissible merely because the location was an open place or accessible to others; the test is whether the object was concealed and not ordinarily visible to the public (Paras 35, 36).

(D) Accused's statement - The transition of the burden of explanation during the recording of a statement under the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the court to draw an adverse inference where the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for incriminating injuries or materials (Para 38).

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged a conviction for murder. The prosecution case rested on an oral dying declaration made by the victim to a witness immediately after the assault, along with physical evidence and injuries found on the appellant. The defense contended that the dying declaration was suspicious, the location of the weapon's recovery was accessible to the public, and the appellant’s injuries were received from other sources.

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the witness receiving the dying declaration to be of sterling quality. The injuries sustained by the appellant were inconsistent with his explanation provided during trial, leading the court to conclude there was a clear nexus between the appellant and the deceased. The recovery of the weapon was held valid despite the location being an open area because the concealment was known exclusively to the appellant.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether an oral dying declaration can sustain a conviction absent independent corroboration and the legal validity of recoveries made from open or accessible locations.

Ratio Decidendi: A dying declaration enjoys special status as trusted evidence; where the court finds it voluntary and truthful, no further corroboration is strictly required. Furthermore, the admissibility of a recovery is governed by the exclusive nature of the accused's knowledge of the item's location rather than the accessibility of the site itself.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT ( Per : SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 31/3/2021, passed by the District Judge and Sessions Court, at Thane in Sessions Case No 277/2017, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for one month.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution’s case are as under:

a. It is the case of the prosecution that informant is working as waiter at Bhiwandi and his elder brother Vasudev worked in a Textile factory, at Sonale. It is further the case of the prosecution that the deceased Vasudev was unmarried and was staying alone. It is further the case that prior to 10 years Accused Doli Ravidas, a person from the village of informant came to Sonale with his wife and children. Deceased Vasudev was staying with family of Accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused went to his native place at Jharkhand by leaving his wife and children at Bhadwad. It is the case that there were illicit relations between Deceased Vasudev and wife of the Accused. It is further the case that since Doli came to know about the said relation there used to occur quarrel between the Accused and Deceased Vasudev and therefore deceased Vasudev started staying separately.

b. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 13/01/2017 at about 7.30 p.m. the brother of the deceased went to see deceased Vasudev at Five Textiles as he was aware about the night duty of deceased Vasudev at 8.00 p.m and was waiting for him on the road outside the factory. It is further the case that after about 7.30 p.m, he heard shouts of deceased Vasudev from ground and hence he ran towards him. He found deceased Vasudev had fallen down on the ground and Accused was seen running away towards Adivasi pada. When the brother of the deceased asked deceased Vasudev as to what happened to him Vasudev told him that Accused Doli assaulted him in stomach with knife. It is the case that deceased Vasudev had sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, other people gathered at the spot and in short time deceased Vasudev became unconscious. It is further the case that police came to the spot and Vasudev was taken to IGM hospital where he was declared dead. The brother of the Accused/Informant lodged complaint against the Accused Doli committing murder of his brother Vasudev. On the basis of said information on 14/1/2017 offence came to be registered vide C.R. No. I- 08/2017 with Shantinagar Police Station.

c. Investigation into the said crime was conducted. After concluding investigation chargesheet came to be filed before JMFC, Bhiwandi. Since offence punishable under section 302 IPC is triable by Court of Sessions, case was committed for trial to the said Court.

3. Charge was framed against accused under section 302 of the IPC. The Appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined following witnesses in support of the case.

1. P.W. 1 – Ramesh Tukaram Salvi, Panch witness

2. P.W. 2 - Shamshad Ahmed Ansari, owner of the hotel

3. P.W. 3 – Kiran Nanji Ghavari, Panch witness

4. P.W. 4 – Ranjeet Jageshwar Das, Brother of the deceased

5. P.W. 5 – Umedsingh Khyatsingh Rawat, Manager

6. P.W. 6 – Ashfak Abdul Kayyum Ansari, Panch witness

7. P.W. 7 – Ramrao Tryambak Dikhale, IO

8. P.W. 8 – Dr. Avinashkumar Dhanawade

9. P.W. 9 – Dr. Jayshree Sanjya Mhaske

5. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the Accused- Appellant came to be recorded. The Appellant did not examine any defence witness. After hearing the arguments and after considering the evidence on record, the trial court was pleased to convict the Appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer S.I for one month.

6. The Appellant has preferred the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 223

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALEHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSATDOLI LEDHA RAVIDAS – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RespondentAPEAL/741/2021

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALEHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
DOLI LEDHA RAVIDAS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
APEAL/741/2021