LexBHAGWAN TUKARAM DANGE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 753 BHAGWAN TUKARAM DANGE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1823 of 2008) MARCH 13, 2014 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B ss.302 and 498-A rlw s. 34 - Death of wife of appellant c with bum injuries - Appellant arid his father, drunk, asking the victim to bring money from her parental house - On refusal she was given severe beatings - Kerosene poured on her and appellant setting her on fire - Dying declarations - Conviction by courts below and sentence of life imprisonment - Held: 0 Conviction was recorded on the basis of dying declarations recorded by Head Constable and Judicial Magistrate - Said statements were further corroborated by father of deceased and medical evidence - There is no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. s. 85 - Act of a person under influence of intoxication - Held: Intoxication, as such, is not a defence to a criminal charge - It cannot be accepted that since accused-appellant was under influence of liquor, offence will fall u/s 304 (Part I) E or s. 304 (Part II) - He was presumed to know the F consequences of his action, of having lit the match stick and set his wife on fire, after his father sprinkled kerosene on her body - He was correctly charge-sheeted u/s 302 and there is no reason to interfere - Since appellant has already suffered 16 years of sentence without remission, State Government is G directed to consider his case in terms of Resolution dated 11. 04. 2008 read with Annexure I - Sentence - Remission of - Government of Maharashtra Resolution No.RLP1006/CR6211 PRS-3 dated 11.04.2008. 753 H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: s.32 - Dying declaration - Evidentiary value of - Explained. The appellant (A-1) and his father (A-2) were B prosecuted for offences punishable ulss 302, 498A read with s.34 IPC, for the murder of the wife of A-1. The prosecution case was that on 18.10.1998 at about 7.00 PM, A1 and A2, while they were fully drunk, demanded money from the wife of A-1. On refusal, she was severely C beaten up and asked to bring it from her parental house. A-2 then sprinkled kerosene on her and A-1 lit a match- stick and set her on fire. On 19.10.1998, at about 3.10 AM she was admitted in the Civil Hospital. Two dying declarations - one by Head Constable (PW-5) and the D other by the Special Judicial Magistrate (PW-4) - were recorded. The narration of the incident by the deceased to her father (PW-6) was treated as the third dying declaration. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 21.10.1998. The trial court convicted and E sentenced both the accused for the offences charged. The High Court declined to interfere. Meanwhile A-2 died. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The conviction was recorded on the basis F of the dying declarations recorded by PW-5 and PW-4, and corroborated by circumstantial evidence. Both the times the deceased was examined by the doctors and they deposed that she was fully conscious and in a condition to give the statement. There is no G inconsistency in the statements made by the deceased to PW5 as well as to PW4. The statements were further corroborated by the evidence of PW6, father of the deceased. The doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, stated that burn injuries found on the body H of the deceased were ante-mortem injuries, which were BHAGWAN TUKARAM DANGE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA sufficient to cause death. [para 6] [759-C-D, F-G] 755 · 1.2 Dying declaration is undoubtedly admissible u/s 32 IPC of the Evidence Act, but due care has to be taken A by the persons who record the statement. Dying declaration is based on the maxim, "Nemo moriturus 8 praesumitur mentire" i.e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. Dying declaration is an exception to heresay rule. The court has to carefully scrutinize the evidence while evaluating a dying declaration since it is not a statement made on oath and is not tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. As a rule of prudence, C there is no requirement as to corroboration of dying declaration before it is acted upon. [para 7-8) [759-G-H; 760-A, C, D-E] Harbans Singh & another v. State of Punjab 1962 Suppl. o SCR 104 =AIR 1962 SC 439; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram · Scigar Yadav and others 1985 (2) SCR 621 = (1985) 1 SCC 552; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Suresh alias Chhavan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.