ASHABAI BHASKAR PAGARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code arises from the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik on 17.7.2000 in Sessions Case No. 194 of 1999. Three accused were put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and accused No. 1, the present Appellant, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, whereas she has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the Appellant's husband and son respectively, have been acquitted of both the charges. The Appellant is presently undergoing sentence as her Application for bail was rejected.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, runs thus:

(3.) The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses and relied upon multiple dying declarations, orally made to some of the witnesses. The first oral dying declaration was claimed to have been made to P.W.2Uttam Pagare and his wife P.W.8-Mirabai when they visited the house of the accused on hearing the shouts of the deceased. The second oral dying declaration made is again to P.W.2-Uttam Pagare while the deceased was being taken from Manikkhamb to Ghoti hospital. The third dying declaration is claimed to have been orally made to P.W.7-Kantabai while the deceased was being taken from Ghoti Hospital to Nashik Civil Hospital. The fourth oral dying declaration is claimed to have been made to P.W.5-Madhukar and P.W.7-Kantabaiat Nashik Civil Hospital. We have scanned through the oral depositions of P.W.2-Uttam Pagare, P.W.5-Madhukar Rupavate, P.W.7-Kantabai and P.W.8-Mirabai on the point of oral dying declarations made to them. Their substantive evidence before the trial Court suffers from omissions, contradictions and improvisations. We have no doubt in our mind that all these oral dying declarations made to P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 do not inspire confidence and, therefore, they have been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court.