KAILAS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (original accused No.1- hereinafter referred as 'accused') faced trial in Sessions Case No.96/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule along with his parents- accused Nos.2 and 3. His parents were acquitted while the appellant- accused has been convicted by judgment dated 30.9.2011 for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. He has been convicted also for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC also and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Hence the appeal.

(2.) In short, the case of prosecution is as follows :-

(3.) We have heard counsel for the appellant- accused. His main thrust of argument was that, the first dying declaration (Exh.53) mentioned that the accused was angry as victim Surekha had come down to the place of her aunt and so, the incident took place while in the second dying declaration (Exh.60), which is more elaborate, the reason given was of non begetting of a male child. Learned counsel argued to show that various things mentioned in the second dying declaration did not find place in the first dying declaration and thus, according to him, both the dying declarations are not reliable and need to be discarded. He submitted that, the two dying declarations were recorded hardly with a gap of about 30 minutes and the version changed in the second dying declaration. He referred to the evidence of P.W.1 Latabai to say that, this relative was present at the time of recording of dying declaration and thus, according to him, the dying declarations should be ignored branding them as tutored.