2006 Supreme(SC) 1449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN, JJ.
Shaikh Bakshu and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6002 of 2006).
Decided on : 21-06-2006
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Sanjay R. Hegde, Ramesh Shivajirao Jadhav and Naresh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ravindra K. Adsure, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the credibility of dying declarations and the significance of discrepancies in recorded statements in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Dying Declarations - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Section 34 - The court discussed the credibility of the dying declarations, discrepancies in the recorded statements, and the absence of evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The court found infirmities in the dying declarations and concluded that the prosecution's accusations were not established.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased suffered burn injuries and subsequently died. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while the conviction under Section 498A Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code was set aside. The prosecution relied on dying declarations to establish guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found infirmities in the dying declarations and discrepancies in the recorded statements, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution's accusations were not established. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
Issues: Credibility of dying declarations, discrepancies in recorded statements, and absence of evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing the credibility of dying declarations and highlighted the significance of discrepancies in recorded statements. The absence of evidence supporting the prosecution's case led to the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. Conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'Indian Penal Code') was confirmed while setting aside the conviction and sentence relatable to offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. All the appellants were convicted by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 214/2001.
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as under :
Rubina (hereinafter to as 'deceased') was married to appellant No. 1 Sk. Bakshu about 8 days prior to the alleged incident, which took place on 19.8.2001 at about 4 p.m. in the house of the appellants. While the deceased was staying in the house of her in-laws, the appellant No.2-Banubai Shakur, sister-in-law of the deceased and appellant No.3 Safirabi Sk. Wahed, mother-in-law of the deceased caught hold of her and her husband, the appellant No.1 Sk. Bakshu by pouring kerosene on her person, set Rubina on fire. The deceased suffered burn injuries. While she was burning, her father-in-law extinguished the fire by pouring water on her. Thereafter, the neighbours had brought the deceased to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani. Court witness Dr. Bhagwan Dhutmal was on duty and after examining the patient, he started treatment. Radhakishan Katare (PW-3), who was working as ASI in Police Out Post in General Hospital, Parbhani, secured the MLC Certificate from the medical officer concerning the deceased Rubina, which is at Exhibit 13. After ascertaining from the medical officer regarding consciousness of the patient to make a declaration, Radhakishan (PW-3) recorded statement of the deceased on the same day i.e. 19.8.2001 at 6 p.m. The said dying declaration is at Exhibit 31. Thereafter, a letter was addressed to PW-1 Naib Singh Tahsildar for recording dying declaration of Rubina and on receipt of intimation, Narhari Pandit. Naib Tahsildar (PW-1), proceeded to the hospital. After ascertaining the physical and mental condition of the patient from the medical officer, the Naib Tahsildar recorded statement of Rubina at 7.15 p.m. which is at Exhibit 26. The medical officer Dr. Bhagwan endorsed on both the dying declarations to the effect that the patient was conscious, oriented in time and space and was able to make a statement. The first dying declaration (Exh. 31) was recorded between 6 p.m. to 6.10 p.m. and the second dying declaration (Exh. 26), which was recorded by Naib Tahsildar was between 7.15 to 7.30 p.m. on the same day i.e. 19.8.2001. The deceased died at 8.30 p.m. on 19.8.2001. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased had suffered 67% burn injuries. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ashok Janakpurkar (PW-2). The post-mortem report is at Exhibit 28. The cause of death, according to the medical officer, was due to cardio respiratory failure due to superficial deep 66% burns. Anil Gaikwad (PW-6) conducted the investigation of the case. He had drawn spot panchnama and recorded statements of witnesses. All the appellants were arrested on 20.8.2001. The clothes of appellants were also seized. The seizure panchanamas are at Exhibits 42, 43 and 44. On 21.8.2001, viscera and articles seized on the spot were sent to Chemical Analyser, whose report is Exhibit 15. In viscera, no poison was detected. Kerosene was detected on the clothes of accused, which were seized. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed by JMFC, Parbhani, to the Court of Sessions for trial. The charges in Exhibit 10 were framed and the appellants were tried before the Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.The prosecution examined 6 witnesses. In their statement under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code the appellants denied the incident in question a
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
