SHANKARRAO RAMRAO SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against conviction preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The facts leading to the appeal may be summarized as under:

(3.) I have heard the learned advocate for the accused Mr. Chatterji as also the learned A.P.P. Mr. Kale. It has been argued by the learned advocate Mr. Chatterji that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution has been heavily relying upon multiple dying declarations, couple of which are written and the third one allegedly orally made to Pralhad (PW1). There are improbabilities and inconsistencies in these dying declarations which go to the root of the veracity of the prosecution case. He would point out that the deceased was certified to be burnt 100% by Dr. Kazi (PW2). Not only that but even there is an endorsement on the M.L.C. letter (Exhibit9) by her to the effect that the patient was unconscious at 1.35 pm which is duly proved by her. If such was the state of affairs, it was unlikely that the deceased could have narrated the incident by making any declaration to Pralhad (PW1) on the way to the hospital. He would then point out that there is a contradiction in the statement of Pralhad (PW1) recorded under Section 161 and his testimony. Unlike what he has deposed, his statement does not refer to such declaration having been made by the deceased to him on the way to the hospital after travelling for about 3 kms, which is duly proved in the testimony of the Investigation Officer Faziuddin (PW10). The learned advocate would then point out that even while recording the history in the case papers (Exhibit14/3) the history was given only as 'Burn Injury morning 9.00 am'.