GANPATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/convict is hereby taking exception to the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur, dtd. 11/10/2018, convicting appellant for offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) In brief, it is the case of prosecution that, deceased Varsha while taking treatment for burns at civil hospital, Latur, gave a dying declaration that, on 26/3/2015, her husband returned home around 4:00 p.m. in drunken condition and questioned her for talking with the villagers and thereafter, poured kerosene and incinerated her. On above dying declaration, crime was registered, initially for offence under Sec. 307, 504, 506 of IPC. While undergoing treatment, deceased succumbed to the 55% burns, and therefore, crime was converted to Sec. 302 and 498-A of IPC, and was thereby tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, recording guilt for offence under Sec. 302 of IPC. Hence, the appeal. SUBMISSIONS Appellant :

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant would brief us about the status of prosecution witnesses and would submit that, case is entirely based on dying declaration. There are two dying declarations. However, according to him, the same are not inspiring confidence as firstly, according to him, there is inordinate delay in recording dying declarations. According to him, alleged occurrence is of 26/3/2015, but dying declaration is recorded on 1/4/2015, and therefore, when she was surrounded by her relatives, there is more possibility of tutoring. He laid stress on the very motive behind the incident as according to him, there is no evidence in that direction. He pointed out that, though mother and maternal uncle are examined and they claimed deceased to have made oral dying declaration before them, it is pointed out that, there is no complaint by any of them and Investigating Officer has admitted to that extent. He further submitted that, deceased had suffered extensive burns including her face and neck and therefore, he would thus submit that, it is doubtful whether she was in condition at all to give dying declaration. He invited our attention to the cross of PW10 Police Head Constable Gangadhar Gudle and would submit that, when this witness answered in cross that entire body was in bandaged condition including hands, then he poses question as to how deceased could put signature. All such circumstances about recording dying declaration being suspicious in nature, it is his submission that, charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and would conclude by submitting that there is improper appreciation of evidence as well as law and so he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment under challenge. Prosecution :