KALYAN GOPINATH DUBE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Kalyan Gopinath Dube is hereby questioning the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dtd. 24/11/2016 in Sessions Case No.278 of 2014 thereby holding him guilty for offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and awarding sentence to suffer imprisonment for life. CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

(2.) On the strength of dying declaration of deceased Babita Kalyan Dube at Exh.25 recorded by Police Officer PW2 Pathare (PSI), Bidkin Police registered offence under Sec. 307, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Deceased Babita had suffered in all 90% burns. While undergoing treatment, she succumbed to burns i.e. due to 'septicemia due to thermal burns'. After arrest of accused, investigation was carried out and on its completion, he was duly chargesheeted and tried before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who on appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution, held case of prosecution as proved and thereby passed impugned judgment. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of appellant :

(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that case of prosecution is based on dying declarations but according to him, dying declarations are not inspiring confidence and are not consistent and ought not to have been relied by the learned trial Court. He submits that even dying declarations are not recorded promptly. Therefore, there is doubt about its veracity. According to him, there are several defects in the dying declaration like (i) no identification of signature of deceased (ii) time of recording dying declarations is not noted (iii) there is no endorsement that after recording dying declarations they were read over to deceased (iv) no certificate of fitness issued by Doctor prior to recording and subsequent to recording dying declarations (v) there is delay in recording both the dying declaration. According to learned Counsel, spot panchanama is not drawn immediately. That there is no motive attributed as to why deceased was set on fire. On the contrary, learned Counsel submitted that burns are accidental. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. On behalf of State :