MARUTI HIRAPPA NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused/appellant herein has challenged his conviction under section 302 I. P. C. by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, by Order dated 12th January, 2000 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1999. The challenge to the conviction is, inter alia, on the ground that the dying declaration recorded by the S. D. M. (Exb. 8) cannot be relied upon as the said dying declaration has not been proved.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 16-11-1998, the accused/appellant herein, a neither of the deceased and P. W. 7, had a quarrel with the deceased over the demand of money. Upon the deceased refusing to give him money, the accused suddenly became violent, criminally trespassed into the house of the deceased/complainant and assaulted her on the head with an iron chair, causing injuries to her head. The accused, thereafter, poured kerosene on the body of the complainant and set her on fire with a matchstick, as a result of which the complainant sustained grievous burn injuries and, ultimately, died at the Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim, on 25-11-1998.

(3.) THE prosecution has, in all, examined thirteen witnesses. One witness, A. S. I. Shro Chandrakant Naik, has been examined as Court witness. The deceased, wife of P. W. 7, is the complainant. Her complaint was recorded by the Police in the Hospital and treated as the F. I. R. However, prior to recording her statement, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by S. D. M. Ponda, Shri Narayan Das Agarwal, P. W. 1. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence of any witness, who has seen the actual incident of the accused assaulting the complainant deceased with the chair on the head and thereafter pouring kerosene on her body and setting her on fire with a matchstick. Therefore, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and the main circumstance is the dying declaration recorded by P. W. 1 Shri Narayan Das Agarwal, S. D. M. Ponda. The said dying declaration has, been assailed by learned Counsel for the accused inter alia on the following grounds, namely :