Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRIPATRAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/08/1999
BENCH:
G.T.Nanavati, S.N.Phukan
JUDGMENT:
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered
NANAVATI. J
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302
and 498A IPC, for causing death of his wife by pouring
kerosene over her body and setting her abiaze. The High
Court dismissed the appeal as it did not find any good
reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
U) have gone through the evidence and we find that a1l
the eight dying declarations are almost consistent. One of
them was made to Doctor H.S. Maharaj (P.W.-1) to whom she
was taken for treatment. He has clearly deposed that soon
after Meena was admitted in the hospital at 7.30 a.m., she
had told him that her husband had poured kerosene on her
clothes and set her ablaze. This was told to the doctor
when he had tried to ascertain from her how she had received
burns. The doctor made a note of it in the case papers (
Ex.14). The
evidence of Dr. Meharaj thus receives support from
contemporaneous document. The doctor had no reason to
falsely depose against the accused or to prepare false case
papers.
The doctor has further stated that he had informed
Police Sub-inspector of Umri Police station that Meena was
brought to the hospital with burns at 7.20 a.m. and
thereafter had also written a letter (Ex. 13) to the P.S.I.
for getting her dying declaration recorded. The said letter
(Ex. 13) was written at 8.50 a.m. The police after
receiving the same had forwarded the same to the Special
Executive Magistrate, Shri Sharma(P.W.-8) who received it at
10 a.m.. Mr. Sharma had then proceeded to Umri dispensary
and after ascertaining fitness of Meena from Dr. Maharaj
(P.W.I) and also after ascertaining it himself had recorded
her dying declaration (Ex. 32). In his cross-examination,
he admitted that the said dying declaration was not in his
hand but in fact it was written by one constable as it was
difficult to write with his trembling hand. Merely because
that fact is not mentioned in. the dying declaration it
cannot be regarded as suspicious. It bears signature of the
doctor and also that of the Executive Magistrate. It is
also true as contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that no time is mentioned in the said dying
declaration. That cannot also affect genuinness of the said
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
dying declaration as there is nothing to show that the
Executive Magistrate was not telling the truth. The
Executive Magistrate had received the requisition at 10.00
a.m. and Meena was shifted at 11.00 a.m. from Umrl to
Civil Hospital at Nanded. Therefore, her statement was
recorded between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m..
At Nanded, her dying declaration was recorded by
Sub-Judicial Magistrate Shrl Sahdev (P.W. 2) at about 3.30
p.m.. We do not find any infirmity either in his evidence
or in trie manner of recording the dying declaration. The
only suggestion made to this witness was that he had
prepared the dying dec1aration( Ex. 21) as desired by one
Laxman and the Police Patil. This suggestion was denied by
him. We do not find any material on record to suggest that
Sub-Judicial Magistrate was under any influence of those
persons or he had any reason to oblige them. These three
dying declarations, 6part from other dying declarations,
being reliable and truthful were rightly relied upon by the
Courts below.
The High Court was therefore right in confirming the
conviction of the appellant and dismissing his appeal. As
we do not find any sustance in this appea) it 1s dismissed.