NATHA SHANKAR MAHAJAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 28-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 958 
NATHA SHANKAR MAHAJAN 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 970 of 2006) 
APRIL 28, 2011 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Conviction based on dying 
C declaration - In the dying declaration, the victim had alleged 
that her husband-accused suspecting her chastity, beat her 
up and set her ablaze by pouring kerosene over her body -
Court below relied upon the dying declaration and convicted 
the husband uls. 302 -
On appeal, held: There was 
endorsement made by the doctor on the statement of victim 
D to the effect that she was conscious and in a position to make 
statement - The doctor had very categorically stated in his 
evidence that the victim was in a position to understand herself 
and was in a position to give statement - Dying declaration 
was recorded by the Magistrate - The evidence of the doctor 
E and the Magistrate was not at all shaken in the cross-
examination - The victim also made an oral dying declaration 
to her father - The courts below did not err in relying upon 
the dying declaration and convicting the accused - Evidence 
F 
- Dying declaration. 
The prosecution case was that the relations between 
the accused-husband and his wife were not cordial 
inasmuch as he suspected her chastity. The accused 
thrashed his wife whole night and the next morning, set 
G her ablaze. Her screams were heard by the neighbour 
(PW2) who came there and sent the information to her 
father that the deceased was burnt. The father came and 
took the deceased to the hospital. After reaching the 
hospital, she was treated by the doctor (PW5) who also 
H 
958 
NATHA SHANKAR MAHAJAN v. STATE OF 
959 
MAHARASHTRA 
arranged for recording her dying declaration. The dying 
A 
declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate 
(PW3).· PW5 also made an endorsement on·the dying 
declaration that the deceased was conscious and was in 
a position to give a statement. Both the courts below 
relied on the dying declaration and convicted the 
B 
accused under Section 302 IPC. The instant appeal was· 
filed challenging the order of conviction. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The evidence of PWs 3 and 5 was not shaken c . 
in the cross-examination at all.' PW5 had very 
categorically stated in his evidence that the deceased 
was in a position to understand herself and was in a 
position to give statement. Therefore, even if the doctor 
stated that he was not attentive as to what exactly was 
D 
told to the PW3, would not matter particularly in view of 
statement of PW-3 who recorded the dying declaration of 
the deceased that he recorded the same as per the 
version of the deceased. In the dying declaration, the 
deceased had clearly alleged that she was beaten by her 
E 
husband on account of the s·uspicion that he had about 
her chastity and ultimately, he poured kerosene over her 
body and set her ablaze. She also gave the name of the 
person with whom she was allegedly in tow. There was 
one more circumstance which was not adverted to, i.e., 
F 
the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to her 
father. As soon as he reached the house of the deceased, 
he asked her as to how she was burnt. There was no 
cross-examination of the witness on this point who was 
examined as PWS. Both the courts below committed no G 
error in relying upon the dying declaration and convicting 
the accused. [Paras 4-6) [961-C-G] 
CRIMINAL, AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 970 of 2006. 
H 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.06.2004 of the High 
B 
Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in 
Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 1996. · 
Ranjan Mukhe~ee, S. Bhowmick for the Appellant. 
Shankar Chillarge (for Asha Gopalan Nair) for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
SIRPURKAR,J. 1. This appeal is against the concurrent 
judgments of the Sessions Court as also the High Court 
whereby the accused stands convicted for the offence 
. punishable under Section 302 IPC on the allegation that he 
committed the murder of his wife Sakhubai by pouring 
kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze. 
D 
2. As per the prosecution case, the relations between the 
accused and his wife were not cordial inasmuch as the 
husband suspected the chastity of his wife and believed that 
she had illicit relations with one Babula! Parsharam Mahajan. 
E It is alleged that on the fateful day i.e. 19.3.1985, 

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