ANTRAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 980 · Decided: 12-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ANTRAM 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
NOVEMBER 12, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 299 Exception 2 and 302-Murder-
Circumstantial evidence-Four Dying declarations-Death of the 
C victim one day after discharge from the hospital-Plea thats. 302 not 
attracted as the case was of medical negligence-Conviction by courts 
below-On appeal, held: Dying Declarations were sufficient to fasten 
the guilt of the accused-Jn view of Exception 2 to s. 299 conviction 
"'!I!s 302 justified. 
D 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having caused death of 
his wife. Prosecution case was that the relations between the couple 
were strained and the victim (wife) was living away from the husband, 
with her three children, in another village'. On the day of the incident, 
the accused was at the house of the victim. Quarrel had started 
E between them, when their daughter (PW 5) was to proceed to school. 
When PW-5 returned from school for some work, at home, she found 
her mother in injured condition. Her mother told her that she was 
assaulted by the accused. PW 5 informed about the incident to her 
maternal uncle (PW 2) who took her to Primary Health Centre. 
F There, Medical Officer (PW 4) recorded the history of the case from 
the victim. PW2 also reported the case to Police and case u/s 307 
IPC was registered. Thereafter she was taken to a private medical 
practitioner (PW 6) who in the presence of Police Inspector, recorded 
statement of the victim. After treatment she was discharged as a 
G cured patient. However, one day after the discharge, she died. The 
case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC. Trial Court 
convicted the accused u/s. 302 IPC. High Court confirmed the 
conviction. 
H 
980 
-f-
. "' 
'l f 
-"t' 
~ 
_, 
,._ 
J 
' 
==t 
): 
~ 
ANTRAM v. STATE [PASA YAT,J.] 
981 
In appeal, the appellant contended that Dying Declaration was 
not reliable; and that Section 302 has no application as the deceased 
could have survived with proper medical care. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As a matter of fact, there were four dying declarations 
recorded; two were oral and two were recorded. The dying 
declarations both oral and written were sufficient to fasten the guilt 
of the accused. The High Court has elaborately dealt with the 
authenticity of the dying declarations and had rightly come to the· 
conclusion that they did not suffer from any infirmity. 
[Paras 7and10] [984-A, F, G] 
2. The plea, that with proper medical care the deceased could 
have survived and therefore Section 302 IPC has no application 
clearly overlooks Exception 2 to Section 299 IPC. The High Court 
found that the presence of mucus and food particles in the trachea 
and bronchi cannot be totally delinked from the injuries inflicted by 
the accused. [Paras 14and11] [985-B, G) 
State of Haryana v. Pala and Ors., AIR (1996) SC 2962 and 
Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi, AIR (1974) SC 2328, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1529of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal 
No. 218 of 2005. 
S. Usha Reddy for the Appellant. 
R.K. Adsure for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliver~d by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of 
the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad-Bench dismissing the appeal filed 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
982 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A by the appellant upholding his conviction for offence punishable under 
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and the 
sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.· 200/- with default 
stipulation. The judgment impugned before the High Court was delivered 
by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions case No. 
B 24of2004. 
3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: 
On 28.11.2003 at about 9:30 a.m., appellant Antram caused death 
of his wife Shobha by brutally assaulting her with an axe. Shobha was 
C married to the accused long back. Two sons and the daughter were the 
children born from said wedlock. About 3 years prior to alleged incident, 
Shobha had started residing at village Kamkheda with the children, which 
is place of her parents. Accused belongs to village Zari Khurd. He used 
to intermittently visit Shobha and children at village Kamkheda. The 
D relations be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.