DHARMENDRASINH @ MANSING RATANSINH versus STTE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 17-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-
DHARMENDRASINH@ MANSING RATANSINH 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF GUJARAT 
APRIL 17, 2002 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, I 860 : Section 302: 
Murder-Husband suspecting fidelity of wife-Committing murder of 
his two sons-Testimony of wife-Vivid description of occurrence given by C 
her-Prosecution case established by cogent evidence on record-Held, 
reliance on her testimony despite minor Contradiction and infirmity in 
investigation was valid-Conviction of accused upheld-Case on facts do not 
fall in the category of rarest of rare cases-Death penalty substituted with 
imprisonment for life. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 154. 
FIR-Contradiction in lodging of-Effect. 
Maxim 
Falsus in Uno Falsus in omnibus-Applicability of 
D 
E 
The appellant was prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860. He committed murder of his two sons. The prosecution case was 
that he had suspicion about character of his wife and in that connection he 
quite often quarrelled with her. Inspite of this, they lived together. In the night 
preceding the incident the appellant told they would be sleeping inside the F 
home though they usually slept outside in the open. In the early hours of 
morning he woke up his wife and after milching of the cow told her to go to 
the dairy to deliver the milk. He himself declined to go to the dairy when asked 
by his wife and had also not allowed her to awake his son to go to the dairy 
for the purpose. After his wife had left he alone was present in the house. On 
her return appellant's wife found her husband assaulting the sleeping boys G 
namely their sons. She raised alarm whereupon the appellant slipped away 
by the back door leaving the weapon at the spot. Her father-in-law and 
brother-in-law arrived. A neighbour of the appellant PW-7, also reached the 
house of appellant, who in his evidence stated that on his arrival, he had found 
no one else there. In his testimony he also stated that the appellant had been H 
193 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 3 S.C.R. 
A suffering from mental disease and had also been admitted in the hospitat 
Regarding lodging of FIR there was contradiction. Appellant's wife, PW-3, 
stated that she had gone to the police station where enquiries were made by 
police personnel and thereafter report was lodged. The investigation officer, 
PW-9 also stated that report was lodged by PW-3. But in bis cross examination 
he made a contradictory statement that on his way back from Court he got 
B a wireless message from the Control regarding the incident and report was 
written at the house of PW-3, where her mother-in-law and father were also 
present. The accused who was absconding was arrested after 15 days of the 
incident. The doctor, PW-1, who conducted the post mortem examination 
opined that injuries were ante mortem and were caused by sharp edged 
C weapon. 
Relying upon the ocular testimony of mother of the deceased children 
and wife of appellant, PW-3, the Trial Court convicted the appellant of the 
offence charged and awarded capital punishment to him. 
D 
High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. It held 
that (i) the reliable testimony of appellant's wife could not be discarded on 
the ground that there was negligence in conducting the investigation (ii) no 
evidence had been led to prove the fact of mental illness of appellant; (iii) 
while saying that on reaching the spot , he found no one else there PW-7 was 
not speaking truth. As to contradiction in lodging the FIR High Court found 
E that the investigating officer, PW-9, while returning from Court went to the 
village where the FIR was scribed at the house of PW-3 which was forwarded 
to police station for its registration. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
F (i) the presence of appellant at the scene of occurrence was not established; 
(ii) the complainant had not actually witnessed the occurrence; (iii) there was 
glaring contradiction in regard to lodging of FIR; (iv) there was discrepancy 
between oral and medical evidence; and (v) the appellant was suffering from 
mental disorder and insanity. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal and modifying the sentence the Court 
HELD: 1. The presence of PW-3 cannot be doubted in respect of which 
an effort was made to raise an argument in vain. The prosecution story as 
,..i... 
per her statement rings true and stands established by cogent evidence on 
the record and inde

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