TANAJI KHANDU JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which to undergo SI for three months, by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, by judgment dated 23rd January 2004, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence.

(2.) SUCH of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:-

(3.) NANDKUMAR. Undisputedly, there is variance in the three dying declarations. In cases resting on multiple dying declarations, consistency is expected in respect of the incident, the prelude to the incident, number of the accused and manner of committing the incident. Recitals in the three dying declarations are inconsistent and acceptance of any one dying declaration necessarily entails rejection of the other. The evidence of PW 2 Sadashiv who claims to be an eye witness is completely contradictory to the recitals of the dying declarations. In the face of such contradictory evidence, according to us, the appellant would be entitled to be given benefit of doubt as no reliance can be placed on any of the dying declarations or on the evidence of PW 2 Sadashiv.