Bapu vs State Of Maharashtra

The appellant and the deceased Shobhabai were married to each other for about 1= years prior to the incident in question which took place on 21.8.1997 at about 3.00 a.m. According to the prosecution, the deceased Shobhabai was being harassed and treated cruelly by the appellant because a gift by way of 'Mul' was not being paid or given by the parents of the deceased Shobhabai after the marriage, which is a practice in their community, and on that count there was a demand of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant prior to the incident. It is alleged that the appellant had taken the deceased Shobhabai to the house of her parents and left her there with an understanding that unless she brings Rs.10,000/- by way of 'Mul', she will not return to her matrimonial home. However, the parents and brother as also the mediator of the marriage of Shobhabai with the appellant, somehow or the other, convinced her and brought her back to the house of the appellant. The brother of the deceased Shobhabai and the mediator also persuaded the accused person that they should not trouble Shobhabai and their demands will be satisfied within a short period. However, within a period of 2-3 days thereafter, the incident in question took place in the night at 3.00 a.m. on 21.8.1997.

According to the prosecution, in that night, prior to going to bed, the mother of the appellant had abused the deceased Shobhabai on account of not washing and cleaning utensils and also on a suspicion of theft of silver ornaments of the sister-in-law of deceased Shobhabai by the deceased. It is alleged that in the morning at 3.00 a.m. when deceased Shobhabai got up, the appellant quarreled with her and when the deceased came outside the house on a platform, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. The villagers gathered and extinguished the fire. Thereafter she was taken to Rural Hospital, Bhadgaon where her dying declarations were recorded initially by the Executive Magistrate in the presence of Dr. Damodar who endorsed it, and later by Police Head Constable PW6 Yanushka Tadavi in the presence of PW8 Lata Patil and the doctor (who endorsed it), in which Shobhabai named the appellant as the culprit. Thereafter she was shifted from Rural Hospital, Bhadgaon to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon where also she made dying declaration to her mother Reshmabai PW2, her brother Suresh PW3 and her cousin Dattatreya PW4, in which also she implicated the appellant. She succumbed to her burn injuries on 22.8.1997 at about 9.30 a.m. In order to prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses viz., PW2 Reshmabai, mother of the deceased, PW3 Suresh, brother of the deceased, PW4 Dattatraya, maternal cousin of the deceased, PW5 Govind Pardeshi, Executive Magistrate at Bhadgaon, PW6 Yanushka, Head Constable at P.S. Bhadgaon, Dr. Damodar PW7, Latabai PW8, Adhikar Shamrao Patil PW10, the mediator in the settlement of the marriage of deceased Shobhabai with the appellant and Dinkar Ingale PW11.

We see no reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declarations especially since there is consistency between all of them. We see no reason why the Executive Magistrate Govind or Dr. Damodar or the other witnesses should make a false statement about the dying declaration. There is no allegation of enmity between the accused and these persons.

(iii) The Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.

(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.

In the present case, the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, the Doctor and the other witnesses is unequivocal that the deceased was conscious and was able to answer the questions. If some persons other than the accused had poured kerosene on the deceased and burnt her, there was no reason why the deceased should have thought of implicating the accused instead of the real culprits. We, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration of the deceased. Hence we uphold the judgment of the courts below.

With the above observations this appeal is dismissed.