Hiraman vs State Of Maharashtra

The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:-

Chandrakala refused to acquiesce to either of these demands, and, therefore, she was given serious burn injuries by the appellant on that fateful night. According to their younger son Ramesh (DW-1) the deceased was taken to the hospital by her family members. That being so, this recording by the doctor assumes significance since it must have been made in their presence. After Head Constable Dagadu Baba Kharat (PW-4) came for duty to that hospital, the above duty doctor informed him about the incident, and also that Chandrakala was still in a position to make a statement. PW-4 recorded the second statement of Chandrakala (exhibit 28) in the presence of PW-5 and the staff nurse after PW-5 certified that she was in a position to give a statement. Chandrakala stated that the appellant poured kerosene on her from a ten liter drum, and then set her on fire since she declined to accept his demand of a golden ring of one tola, and transfer of the land belonging to her maternal uncle to him. According to this statement one neighbour Baba Saheb Vitekar had extinguished the fire, and then she was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, her thumb impression was obtained on the statement after reading it to her. This second dying declaration was treated as the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and was registered at 10:10 p.m. as Crime No. 44/2000 under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempt to murder. Chandrakala was very much in a position to make a statement at that time, and was not under the influence of any drug since she was injected with sedatives only at about 10:30 p.m. At the time of recording of this statement her two sons as well as the appellant were present since, as stated by Ramesh (DW-I), all the family members had taken her to the hospital. The Appellant has also stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that he too had gone to the hospital. Mother and brother of Chandrakala were however not present at that time as they could reach the hospital only after she had passed away. After her death the charge was altered from the one under Section 307 to the one under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. PW- 1 Dr. Abhijit Boralkar who performed the post-mortem gave the cause of death as follows:-

Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.”

Hence, the Conclusion:

18. In the present case there are two dying declarations recorded at the earliest opportunity. They contained the motive for the crime, and the reasons as to why the deceased suffered the burn injuries viz., the greed of the appellant to which the deceased had refused to succumb. As far as her statements viz., that the appellant had poured kerosene and set her on fire is concerned, there is no reason to discard it considering the fact that it was made at the earliest opportunity and on a solemn occasion. The defence put up a story which is totally inconsistent with the facts which have come on record, and is a clear afterthought and therefore unacceptable. In fact this case clearly shows an attempt to put up a totally false defence. The prosecution has undoubtedly proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

19. In view of the above legal position and facts on record, we see no reason to interfere in the judgment and order rendered by the learned Sessions Judge as modified and confirmed by the High Court.

20. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.