ARUN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are convicted by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 11/2005 are challenging their conviction and sufference of order of sentence in this present appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. R. K. Tiwari, the learned counsel appointed by this Court to represent the appellants vide order dated 04.2.2019 since the counsel engaged by the appellants were not appearing. I have also heard Mr. V. P. Gangane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Both the learned counsel took me in detail through the record and proceedings.

(3.) It is the submission of Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appointed for the appellants that the Court below was not right in discarding the dying declaration (Exh.54) recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate when deceased Sanjeevani @ Geeta was admitted in the hospital, on the ground that the appellants failed to adduce evidence of the doctor in respect of her fitness as well as the scribe of the said document, especially when the learned Judge himself has placed reliance on the alleged oral dying declaration made by deceased Sanjeevani to PW3 Mahadev, who in turn transmitted the information to PW1 Nagorao when the prosecution did not adduce the evidence of doctor to show the fitness of the deceased at the time of giving oral dying declaration on the day when she made such oral dying declaration.