Nirmala Suresh Baikar vs The State Of Maharashtra

CNR No : HCBM010483562024

: 1 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2024
Nirmala Suresh Baikar …..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .….Respondent
…..
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4173 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2024
-----
Mr. Pawan Mali, Advocate a/w. Yagni Sarvankar for the Appellant.
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
th
DATE : 27 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :
[PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]
1.
The Appellant has challenged the judgment and order
dated 16.10.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad at
Alibag in Sessions Case No.27/2016. There were two accused in
the said case. The original accused No.2 was the Appellant’s son.
He was acquitted of all the charges. However, the Appellant was
convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to
1 of 26
Deshmane(PS)
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 2 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer
S.I. for three months. The Appellant was given set off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
2.
Heard Mr. Pawan Mali, the learned counsel for the
Appellant and Ms. Supriya Kak, the learned APP for the
Respondent-State.
3.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased
Priyanka was married to the Appellant’s son (original accused
No.2). It was a love marriage. The Appellant was opposed to that
marriage. Initially the couple resided elsewhere; but a few days
prior to the incident dated 5.12.2015, the deceased and the
accused No.2 came to reside near the house of the Appellant. On
5.12.2015, at around 2.00 p.m., the accused No.2 had gone out. It
is the prosecution case that the Appellant entered the room of the
deceased, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The
husband of the deceased Priyanka came after 10 to 15 minutes and
he doused the fire. He took her to the nearest police station and
from there she was taken to the hospital. Police Naik Juili Mhatre
recorded her statement and treated it as an FIR. It was lodged at
around 5.25 p.m.. A Special Executive Magistrate [SEM] also
2 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 3 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
recorded her statement. Thus, there were two written dying
declarations wherein she had narrated the same story alleging that
the Appellant had set her on fire. She was shifted to KEM hospital,
Mumbai and she died on 12.12.2015. She had suffered 80% burn
injuries. It is the prosecution case that one day before her death she
expressed her desire to give more details about the incident to her
mother, sister and brother. Her brother videographed her
statement. On this occasion, Priyanka changed her story and stated
that the accused No.2 together with the present Appellant had
poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. They left the place by
bolting the door from outside. After some time, the accused No.2
came back and took her to the hospital. This was a completely
different story. During investigation, the spot panchnama was
conducted. After Priyanka’s death the postmortem was conducted.
The clothes of the deceased and the Appellant were seized. The
articles were sent for chemical analysis. At the conclusion of the
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed
to the Court of Session.
4.
During trial, the prosecution examined seventeen
witnesses, including the police officers and the SEM who had
3 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 4 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
recorded the dying declarations, mother, brother and sister of the
deceased, the panchas, the medical officers and the investigating
officer. The learned Judge disbelieved the evidence of the
videographed dying declaration made to the mother, brother and
sister of the deceased. On that reasoning, he acquitted the accused
No.2. The defence of the Appellant was that of total denial. She
did not take any specific defence. However, the learned Judge
believed the two dying declarations recorded by the police and the
SEM; and on that basis convicted and sentenced the Appellant.
5.
The FIR was lodged by PW-1 Juili Mhatre, who had
recorded the first dying declaration. She deposed that she was
attached to Wadkhal police station. On 5.12.2015, she was on duty
as police station officer in charge. At about 2.30 p.m., a lady having
suffered burns came to the police station with her husband. PW-1
and other officers took her to the Rural Hospital, Pen for treatment.
PW-1 got her admitted. PW-1 took endorsement from the doctor
regarding her fitness to give statement. She called two members of
Mahila Suraksha Samiti. They were Vaishali Mhatre and Kalyani
Patil. The Dy.S.P. was also present. Priyanka’s statement was
recorded. PW-1 herself recorded the statement. The statement is
4 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 5 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
produced on record at Exhibit-22. It had the signature of the Dy.S.P.
and the signatures of the two aforementioned members of Mahila
Suraksha Samiti. It also had the thumb impression of Priyanka as
well as the endorsement of the doctor. Priyanka told her that the
marriage was a love marriage. Her mother-in-law i.e. the present
Appellant did not approve of that marriage. She came to reside
near the Appellant’s house about twenty days prior to the incident.
The Appellant used to abuse her. The Appellant told Priyanka that
she would kill her one day. On 5.12.2015, at around 2.00 p.m.,
Priyanka’s husband had gone out. She was alone in the house. The
Appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. PW-1
recorded the statement and brought it to the police station. She
registered C.R. No.60/2015 at Wadkhal police station under
Sections 307, 498-A read with 34 of IPC. The FIR proforma is
produced on record at Exhibit-23. PW-1 identified the clothes of the
deceased.
In the cross-examination, she stated that Priyanka came
to the police station with her husband at 2.30 p.m. to 2.45 p.m..
The said fact was not entered in the station diary. PW-1 herself was
in-charge of the said station diary on that day. She did not make
5 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 6 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
station diary entry when she left the police station to go to the
hospital. PW-1 was unable to tell the name of the doctor who had
put his endorsement on the dying declaration. It took 15 minutes
to record her dying declaration. PW-1 obtained the signatures. It
was around 3.30 p.m.. She came to the police station at about 4.30
p.m.. She deposed that Priyanka was residing in a separate room
which was adjoining to the Appellant’s house. PW-1 herself did not
visit the spot of incident and she did not arrest the Appellant. She
stated that when Priyanka came to the police station she was in a
critical condition.
6.
The dying declaration at Exhibit-22 bears the
endorsement of the doctor as – “patient conscious. Can give its
verbal statement”. The dying declaration gives many details. It
gives the details of her address. It also gives the details about the
age of her husband and details about her son Preet. The dying
declaration mentions the full name of the Appellant. It is further
mentioned in the dying declaration at Exhibit-22 that the Appellant
was opposed to Priyanka’s marriage with the Appellant’s son; but
inspite of that they got married three years ago. After the
marriage, they were residing in separate room. They were blessed
6 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 7 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
with a son. About one month prior to the incident, her husband
constructed a room at Dharamtar. The Appellant used to abuse
Priyanka and used to threaten her that she would kill Priyanka. On
5.12.2015, since morning the Appellant was abusing her. After
lunch, her husband left the house to go to the creek. She herself
and her son Preet were in the house. At about 2.00 p.m., the
Appellant came to her room. She had brought a kerosene can. She
poured kerosene on Priyanka and set her ablaze with a match-stick
and she left the house. At that time nobody was in the vicinity.
Nobody came to douse her fire. About after 15 to 20 minutes her
husband Dinesh came back. He poured water from a water-tank.
He put a bed-sheet on her. He then took her to Wadhkal police
station. The police then took her to the Government Hospital at
Pen. She further stated that she was fully conscious. After
narrating this, the dying declaration records the gist of the entire
incident and significantly the concluding paragraph mentions that
her statement was recorded in the presence of two members of
Mahila Suraksha Samiti Vaishali Mhatre and Kalyani Patil.
7.
PW-14 Kiran Patil was the Special Executive Magistrate.
He visited the Rural Hospital, Pen as per the directions given by the
7 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 8 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
Tahsildar for recording Priyanka’s statement. He deposed that he
met Dr. Tandale who took him to Priyanka. PW-14 asked
Dr.Tandale to examine Priyanka as to whether she was ready to
give statement or not. He further stated that Dr. Tandale examined
the said lady and asked certain questions to her and thereafter
informed PW-14 that she was in a position to give statement. At
that time, the said Medical Officer and Priyanka were the only
persons present in the room. After that, PW-14 asked her about the
incident. He recorded the statement as stated by Priyanka. She
informed him that she was married about three years prior to the
incident. She was residing separately from her in-laws. Her
mother-in-law i.e. the Appellant used to abuse her and threaten to
kill her. Her husband had gone out for work. At about 2.00 p.m.,
the Appellant came there. She had brought kerosene. The
Appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Priyanka
shouted for help and after 10 to 15 minutes, her husband came
back. He extinguished the fire by pouring water and he took her
to the police station on the motorcycle. This was the statement
given by her. The statement is produced on record at Exhibit-57. It
bears the endorsement of Dr.Tandale in the margin as “patient can
8 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 9 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
give its verbal statement”
In the cross-examination, he accepted that he did not
record the questions asked by the Medical Officer to Priyanka. He
did not record the questions put by him to Priyanka. He did not
record the exact timing of starting and ending of recording of the
said statement. The endorsement of the Medical Officer did not
mention the timing and date. The averments in the dying
declaration at Exhibit-57 are similar to the description given by PW-
14. She added that when she was set ablaze, she started shouting
but nobody came to help her. After 15 to 20 minutes, her husband
came back. He poured water on her and then took her to Wadkhal
police station.
8.
In that context, the evidence of PW-4 Indubai Baikar is
important. She was a neighbour. She deposed that her house was
adjacent to the house of the accused. The accused No.2 and the
deceased were staying together. The Appellant was residing in a
room adjacent to the house of the deceased. The incident occurred
in the afternoon of 5.12.2015. PW-4 heard the shouts. She saw that
Priyanka’s clothes had caught fire. PW-4 wrapped Priyanka with a
cloth. She specifically told that the accused No.2 i.e. Priyanka’s
9 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 10 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
husband was present with Priyanka. She did not know as to how
Priyanka had sustained burn injuries as she was inside the house.
After that the accused No.2 took Priyanka to the hospital on a
vehicle.
In the cross-examination, the portion marked ‘A’ from
her statement was put to her. She accepted that it was stated by
her. In that portion mark which is exhibited at Exhibit-83 it was
mentioned that at 2.00 p.m. on 5.12.2015, the accused No.2
Dinesh brought Priyanka outside their house. She had suffered
burn injuries. PW-14 went there and put a blanket on Priyanka.
There is no mention of presence of the Appellant.
9.
PW-3 Anusaya Patil was the mother of the deceased,
PW-6 Jayesh Patil was the brother of the deceased, PW-11 Ranjana
Patil was the sister of the deceased and PW-12 Harshad Patil was a
cousin of the deceased. All of them have stated about the oral
dying declaration made to them by the deceased blaming only the
Appellant. All of them, in short, deposed about a video recording
of the dying declaration of the deceased wherein she had narrated
a different story ascribing roles to the Appellant as well as to the
accused No.2. To that extent, their evidence is similar.
10 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 11 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
10.
PW-3 Anusaya Patil, the mother of the deceased,
deposed that on 5.12.2015, she received a telephonic message from
her son that the Appellant had set Priyanka on fire. On 5.12.2015,
PW-3 & PW-6 hired a vehicle and went to Pen. They came to know
that Priyanka was shifted to KEM Hospital,Mumbai. They went
there. That time Priyanka was unable to speak with PW-3.
Treatment was going on. Priyanka was shifted to the ICU. She
further deposed that Priyanka was in a fit state of mind and was
fully conscious. PW-3 enquired with Priyanka, who stated that she
was set on fire by the Appellant. The Appellant had poured
kerosene on her and then had lit a matchstick and had thrown it on
Priyanka. Priyanka further told PW-3 that the Appellant bolted the
door from outside. After sometime, the accused No.2 came there.
He opened the door, extinguished the fire by pouring water and
brought her to the police station at Wadkhal. She was taken to the
hospital at Pen. On 11.12.2015, Priyanka told her that she had
realized that she was about to die. She narrated another story. She
told that the accused No.2 i.e. the Appellant’s son had beaten her.
The accused No.2 poured kerosene on her person. When she
narrated this, PW-3’s son Jayesh (PW-6) and her nephew Harshad
11 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 12 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
(PW-12) were present. They videographed that statement.
Priyanka died on 12.12.2015.
In the cross-examination, she deposed that during
Priyanka’s admission to KEM Hospital, the accused No.2 was taking
care of Priyanka. He used to bring medicines. He did not leave
Priyanka alone. The police had recorded two to three statements of
Priyanka. She further stated that when she saw Priyanka, she found
her in critical and serious condition. At that time, medical
treatment was going on.
11.
The evidence of PW-6 Jayesh Patil is on the same lines.
He also deposed about Priyanka narrating him the first story
wherein she had ascribed a role only to the Appellant. He then
deposed about the videographed dying declaration. At that time,
Priyanka told them that both the accused had poured kerosene and
set her on fire. He produced the certificate issued by him which
was treated as a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
It is marked at Exhibit-33. The video recording was made on his
mobile phone. He identified the video clips.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that on
11.12.2015 he did not disclose to any police officer that he had
12 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 13 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
recorded the conversation of the deceased in his mobile phone. He
had stayed in KEM Hospital for seven days. During that period, the
Medical Officers used to visit and examine Priyanka. At the time of
the video recording, the medical officers and nurses were present
nearby. He corrected himself and added that at that time the
Medical Officers and the nurses were not present. He showed the
video clips to the police on 13.12.2015. He had accompanied
Priyanka from Alibag Hospital to KEM Hospital, Mumbai. From
the date of the incident, Priyanka’s son was with PW-6. He added
that he did not show the video clips recorded by him for three days
after its recording to anybody.
12.
PW-11 Ranjana Patil was the sister of Priyanka. Her
evidence is almost similar and her cross-examination was on the
same lines. She also deposed about the oral dying declaration
ascribing a role only to the Appellant and then deposed about the
dying declaration wherein Priyanka had ascribed a role each to the
accused No.2 and the Appellant. She admitted that since
6.12.2015, till Priyanka’s death, the family members accompanied
Priyanka. The Police Officer Shri Borate attached to Wadkhal
police station was regularly visiting KEM Hospital from 6.12.2015
13 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 14 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
to 11.12.2015 but she did not inform him about the statement
given by Priyanka to them. They did not inform the police about
the video clip recording of Priyanka’s statement.
13.
PW-12 Harshad Patil was Priyanka’s cousin. His
evidence is also similar. However, there is one material statement
made by him. According to him, in her videographed statement,
Priyanka told them that the accused No.2 had poured diesel on her
and set her on fire. Her husband had told her to blame the
Appellant and threatened her that if she named him then he would
kill their son Preet. This witness admitted that all the time the
doctors, nurses and ward boys were available in that Ward and
generally the outsiders were not allowed to enter the ICU. He also
admitted that Priyanka’s condition was critical and she was
continuously under medication. At the relevant time, he did not
inform the police about the video clip.
14.
PW-13 Darshana Patil was another sister of the
deceased. She deposed about the oral dying declaration ascribing a
role only to the Appellant. She did not speak about the
videographed dying declaration.
15.
PW-7 Manoj Patil was a pancha in whose presence the
14 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 15 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
S.D. card from the mobile phone of PW-6 was given to the police.
The panchnama is produced on record at Exhibit-37. The
panchnama was conducted on 16.12.2015.
16.
PW-2 Vilas Rathod was a pancha for the spot
panchnama which is produced on record at Exhibit-26. The
panchnama mentions seizure of kerosene can containing half liter
kerosene, matchbox, half burnt blanket etc.. There was water all
around inside the room.
17.
PW-8 Chandrakant Patil was a Circle Officer who had
prepared a map of the spot of incident. In the cross-examination,
he stated that the spot was surrounded by other houses. The map
shows at least three houses adjacent to the spot of incident.
18.
PW-9 Avinash Rane was a pancha, in whose presence
clothes of the accused No.2 and his phone were seized. PW-10
Umesh Panchal was a pancha in whose presence clothes of the
Appellant and clothes of the deceased were seized under
panchnama at Exhibits-45 & 49 respectively.
19.
PW-15 Dr.Manoj Parchake had conducted the
postmortem examination. According to him, the deceased had
suffered 80% burn injuries. The postmortem notes are produced on
15 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 16 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
record at Exhibit-60. The cause of death was mentioned as
‘septicemia due to burns (unnatural)’. The deceased had died on
12.12.2015.
20.
PW-16 Dr. Anant Tandale is an important witness. His
endorsement appears on both the written dying declarations at
Exhibits-22 & 57. He deposed that on 5.12.2015, he was attached
to Sub-District Hospital at Pen as Medical Officer. Priyanka was
brought to that hospital. Her statement was recorded by the police
officer in the hospital. At that time, he had examined her and put
his endorsement about the physical condition. According to him, at
that time, the patient was conscious and she was able to give her
statement. He identified his endorsement on Exhibit-22. He further
deposed that on the same day, the Special Executive Magistrate,
Pen visited the hospital and recorded the statement of Priyanka in
his presence. At that time also, he examined Priyanka and opined
that the patient could give her verbal statement. Accordingly, he
put his endorsement about the fitness of Priyanka in the margin of
the statement. He thereafter put his endorsement at Exhibit-57.
He had issued a medical certificate showing that Priyanka had
suffered 59% burn injuries. According to him, at the time of
16 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 17 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
recording Priyanka’s statement he found her physically and
mentally fit; and accordingly he had given opinion in the form of
endorsement.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that after
Priyanka’s admission, her statement was recorded by the police
within 15 to 20 minutes. He admitted that he had not mentioned
the timing of the endorsement given by him on that statement. He
also admitted he had not mentioned the timing of his endorsement
on Exhibit-57.
21.
PW-17 PI Borate was the investigating officer. He
deposed about the investigation carried out by him. He had
requested the SEM (PW-14) to record Priyanka’s statement. He got
the spot panchnama prepared. He arrested the accused under the
arrest panchnama. During investigation, Priyanka’s relatives
produced the video clip of her statement. The memory card was
seized. Since the name of the accused No.2 was disclosed in that
statement, he was also arrested. The articles were sent for
chemical analysis. After conclusion of investigation, he filed the
charge-sheet against the accused.
22.
Besides this oral evidence, the prosecution produced
17 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 18 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
the CA certificate on record at Exhibit-80. Importantly, the test for
presence of kerosene on the clothes of the Appellant was negative;
that means the clothes of the Appellant did not have traces of
kerosene.
. This, in short, was the evidence led by the prosecution.
23.
The learned counsel for the Appellant made the
following submissions :
i. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. It rests
purely on different dying declarations which were contrary
to each other. None of the dying declarations was truthful
and reliable. Therefore, benefit of doubt must be given to
the Appellant.
ii. He submitted that the endorsement on Exhibits-22 & 57 fell
short of the requirement to prove that the deceased was in a
fit state of mind to give her statement.
iii. PW-4 Indubai Baikar’s evidence falsifies both written dying
declarations.
iv. The oral dying declarations made to Priyanka’s relatives and
18 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 19 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
the videographed dying declaration were disbelieved by the
learned Judge. There was no appeal against that finding.
v. PW-1 Juili Mhatre did not make any station diary entry
before leaving the police station for recording the dying
declaration.
vi. The two social workers and Dy.S.P. who put their signatures
on the dying declaration at Exhibit-22 were not examined.
vii. There is contrary evidence about the presence or absence of
Priyanka’s son Preet. At some places in the dying declaration
it is mentioned that Preet was present in the house but
afterwards there is no explanation as to what happened to
Preet. There is total silence. The manner in which the
incident is described shows that no incident could have taken
place at all involving the Appellant.
24.
The learned APP, on the other hand, heavily relied on
the written dying declaration recorded by PW-14 SEM Kiran Patil.
The learned APP submitted that the dying declaration had the
endorsement of PW-16 Dr. Tandale and, therefore, there is no
reason to disbelieve that particular dying declaration at least.
25.
The learned APP also relied on the written dying
19 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 20 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
declaration at Exhibit-22 but she laid emphasis on the dying
declaration recorded by PW-14 SEM Kiran Patil. She submitted that
both these dying declarations are corroborated by oral dying
declarations given by Priyanka to her mother, sister and brother. All
of them to that extent corroborate each other and, therefore, the
learned Judge has rightly recorded his finding of conviction and
has properly sentenced the Appellant.
26.
We have considered these submissions. As far as the
videographed dying declaration is concerned, the learned Judge
himself has rightly disbelieved that particular evidence. In
paragraph-24 of the impugned judgment, he had given following
reasons for discarding that particular dying declaration as follows:
i. It was recorded at such a time when the deceased was critical
and breathing her last and there is no certification of mental
and physical fitness.
ii. It is inconsistent with previous dying declaration as regards
nature of fuel.
iii. It is before only family members and no independent witness,
medical authority and hence there is more possibility of it
being tutored one.
iv. There was considerable delay in handing over said
videographed declaration to the police
20 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 21 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
27.
We fully agree with the reasons given by the learned
Judge in discarding the videographed dying declaration. It is
important to note that the oral dying declarations were made to the
same witnesses who were the near relatives of Priyanka and who
were always with her from 6.12.2015 till she died on 12.12.2015.
Thus, the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out. Their evidence
on major portion of videographed dying declaration is disbelieved
and, therefore, it would not be safe to rely on their evidence as far
as the oral dying declarations are concerned.
28.
The next incriminating piece of evidence which requires
serious consideration is Exhibit-22 which is the dying declaration
recorded by PW-1 Police Naik Juili Mhatre. As discussed earlier, the
said dying declaration is a very detailed dying declaration giving
many details. It gives the details of the full names of the deceased,
the Appellant, full address, their age etc.. The concluding
paragraph mentions that Priyanka herself has stated that her
statement was recorded in the presence of Vaishali Mhatre and
Kalyani Patil. She had no reason to know either of these committee
members and yet, her dying declaration specifically mentions
21 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 22 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
their names and records the fact that the dying declaration was
recorded in their presence. Quite clearly, hence, the dying
declaration is not in her exact words.
29.
The second last paragraph of the dying declaration
gives the gist of her entire narration. Considering her critical
condition, this repetition would not have been made by her. There
is sufficient force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Appellant that the said dying declaration is not in the words of the
deceased but it is a statement written as per the convenience of
the police officer. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to
rely on this particular dying declaration as well.
30.
This leaves the only serious evidence against the
Appellant in the form of the dying declaration at Exhibit-57
recorded by PW-14 SEM Kiran Patil. In this connection, the
evidence of the doctor giving endorsement i.e. PW-16 Dr. Anant
Tandale is important. His evidence on the dying declaration is very
cryptic, which mentions that ‘patient can give its verbal statement’.
It does not speak about the physical fitness or mental fitness or
consciousness of the patient. The endorsement also does not
indicate at what time exactly the endorsement was given – whether
22 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 23 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
it was given prior to recording of the statement or after recording
of the statement. The satisfaction that the patient was in a
position to give statement being fully aware of what she was
saying; is an important aspect of her dying declaration. PW-14 SEM
Kiran Patil also has not recorded his own satisfaction that the
patient was in a fit mental state to give her dying declaration. He
has entirely relied on the opinion of Dr. Tandale. PW-14 stated that
Dr. Tandale examined the patient and asked certain questions to
her and thereafter informed him that she was in a position to give
the statement. However, Dr. Tandale himself does not refer to any
such questions having put to her. He merely stated that after the
police recorded Priyanka’s statement, the SEM Kiran Patil visited
the hospital and recorded Priyanka’s statement in his presence. At
that time, he examined Priyanka and opined that the ‘patient can
give her verbal statement.’ This endorsement and his evidence is
not sufficient to prove that she was in a mentally fit condition to
give her statement. Therefore, it is difficult to rely on the dying
declaration at Exhibit-57 as well.
31.
Even otherwise, the story narrated in that dying
declaration is not believable. According to the contents of that
23 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 24 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
dying declaration, the Appellant came to Priyanka’s room. She
poured kerosene on her and then lit a match-stick and threw it on
her. Priyanka caught fire. She shouted for help but nobody came
to help her. After about 15-20 minutes, the accused No.2 came
home and then poured water on her to extinguish the fire. She was
then taken to Wadkhal police station. There is absolutely no
mention of any struggle or resistance offered by Priyanka. This
itself is unbelievable.
32.
According to this dying declaration, the Appellant
single handedly committed this offence. It is difficult to believe
that Priyanka would not have resisted or struggled during this
incident. There was no reference that door of the room was bolted
from outside by the Appellant. The time gap of about 15-20
minutes is also long in the context of the case. It is not possible to
believe that she kept burning in the same state and she just sat
there for about 15-20 minutes till the accused No.2 doused the fire.
The water tank was very much available and yet Priyanka did not
try to extinguish the fire. This aspect is also unbelievable.
33.
The narration in this dying declaration is further
falsified by the evidence of PW-4 Indubai Baikar. She was an
24 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 25 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
independent witness. She had no reason to give false evidence.
She had stated that at the relevant time, she heard shouts. She
came out. She saw that Priyanka’s clothes had caught fire. She
wrapped a cloth around her. At that time, only the accused No.2
was present near Priyanka. The map shows that there were other
houses surrounding the spot and yet, there was no other neighbour
who had seen the Appellant anywhere near the spot. The narration
in Exhibit-57 is not consistent with the evidence of PW-4, who was
an independent witness.
34.
Apart from these factors, there is one positive factor in
favour of the Appellant. The chemical analysis report shows that no
traces of kerosene were found on the clothes of the Appellant. This
is a very strong circumstance in her favour. If the incident as
described in the dying declarations was true, then it was expected
that the clothes of the Appellant would show traces of kerosene. In
this case, there were no such traces at all. This is a positive
circumstance in favour of the Appellant.
35.
Considering all these aspects, we are satisfied that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the Appellant and, therefore, the Appellant deserves to be
25 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32

: 26 : 901-APEAL-1130-24-J.odt
acquitted. Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case
No.27/2016 convicting and sentencing the Appellant, is set
aside. The Appellant is acquitted from all the charges.
iii. The Appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in
any other case.
iv.
Before being released, the Appellant shall execute a P.R. bond
in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only)
under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for her appearance in case an Appeal against
acquittal is preferred.
v.
The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Connected
Interim Application is also disposed of.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Date:
2026.11.02
18:27:06
+0530
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
26 of 26
Uploaded on - 02/11/2026 Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 19:05:32
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)