BAPU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 16-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

...... 
A 
BAPU 
\'. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
..., 
NOVEMBER 16, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872-s.32: 
.. 
c 
Three dying declarations-One each before the Executive Magistrate 
and the Head Constable-Third one before relatives of deceased-All of them 
implicating deceased's husband as the culprit-Conviction based on the 
dying declarations-Justification of-Held, justified-Evidence of Executive 
•, 
Magistrate, Doctor and other witnesses unequivocal that deceased was 
conscious and able to answer the questions-No reason to disbelieve the 
D dying declarations especially since there is consistency between all of them-
Penal Code, 1860-S.302. 
Deceased gave three dying declarations to the effect that her husband 
(Appellant) poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. 
Two dying declarations were recorded while deceased was in the Rural 
E Hospital; one by the Executive Magistrate in presence of the Doctor who 
endorsed it, and, the other by the Police Head Constable in presence of Doctor 
who endorsed it and another person. In both the declarations, deceased named 
Appellant as the culprit. Deceased made the third dying declaration before 
her mother, brother and cousin when she was shifted to the Civil Hospital 
F 
wherein also she implicated the Appellant. Very soon thereafter, deceased 
succumbed to her burn injuries. The Trial Court convicted appellant under 
Section 302 IPC. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for consideration is 
whether the veracity of the dying declarations was doubtful and the Courts 
G below erred in convicting appellant under Section 302, IPC. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The evidence on record shows that the incident occurred in 
the house of the accused-appellant. The deceased was initially admitted in 
H 
52 
,..,.,.-
·-
BAPU v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
53 
Rural Hospital, Bhadgaon where the dying declaration was recorded by the A 
Police as well as the Executive Magistrate. The deceased was thereafter shifted 
to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and the deceased repeated her dying declaration 
before several other persons. In all these dying declarations, the deceased 
has stated that it was the appellant who poured kerosene on her and set her 
on fire by a matchstick and all these dying declarations are consistent with B 
each other. According to the Doctor, who had examined the deceased, she had 
sustained 88% burns which were deep. However, the Doctor has stated that 
deceased was speaking in an audible voice and it was not true to say that she 
was not in a position to speak. The witnesses all have stated that the deceased 
was at the time of recording dying declarations in a fit mental condition. 
(55-F-G; 56-B-C) C 
1.3. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declarations 
especially since there is consistency between all of them. There is also no 
reason why the Executive Magistrate or the Doctor or the other witnesses 
should make a false statement about the dying declaration. There is no 
allegation of enmity between the accused and these persons. (56-F) 
D 
2. A perusal of the various decisions of this Court shows that if a dying 
declaration is found to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration by 
any witness, and conviction can be sustained on Ks basis alone. (59-EJ 
Narain Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR (2004) SC 1616; Babula/ & Ors. E 
v. State of MP., (2003) 12 SCC 490; Ravi & Anr. v. State of T.N. [2004( 10 
SCC 776 and Mutl;u Kutty & Anr. v. State, (2005) 9 SCC 113, relied on. 
3. In the present case, the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, the 
Doctor and the other witnesses is unequivocal that the deceased was conscious 
and was able to answer the questions. If some persons other than the accused F 
had poured kerosene on the deceased and burnt her, there was no reason why 
the deceased should have thought of implicating the accused instead of the 
real culprits. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration 
of the deceased. Hence the judgment of the Courts below is upheld. [59-F, GI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of G 
2004. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17-10-2003 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Crl. A. No. 255 of 1998. 
Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni for the Appellant. 
H 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
V.N. Raghu

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