LexRAJENDRA S/O RAMDAS KOLHE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 740 : 2024 INSC 422 Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of 2011) 15 May 2024 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration By the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010, the High Court relied upon the written dying declaration of the deceased Ex. 59 recorded by PW-6 and also the oral dying declarations of the deceased made before PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 and thereafter upheld the judgment of conviction of the trial court. The appellant was convicted for committing an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Whether the dying declaration (Ex.59), in the instant case, was the valid piece of evidence. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32(1) – Dying Declaration – Conviction under – Prosecution case that victim was confined at her house and assualted – It was alleged that appellant-husband and brother-in-law of victim tied her legs with a towel and her hands with a gamcha – The husband poured kerosene all over her body and set her ablaze – Hearing her scream, people gathered outside her house and extinguished flames – Thereafter, she was taken to hospital and after few days she died – However, she gave a dying declaration (Ex.59) and clearly stated about the role played by her husband and brother-in-law – The trial Court convicted appellant-husband u/ss. 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC – The said conviction was upheld by the High Court: Held: In her dying declaration (Ex. 59), the victim-deceased clearly stated about the role played by the husband (appellant) and the brother-in-law in the incident which led to her burn injuries – The contents of the dying declaration have been proved by PW-6, PW-12 and PW-13 – Though there are certain inconsistencies in their evidence – However, those are not material and do not affect the sub-stratum of her statement – The incident had occurred on 22.07.2002 with the dying declaration recorded on the same day [2024] 6 S.C.R. 741 Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra within a couple of hours whereas the evidence was tendered in court by the above witnesses after 5 years – Such inconsistencies are bound to be there – In fact, identical statements by the material witnesses may create doubt in the mind of the court about the credibility of such evidence, as being tutored – The attending doctor had certified that the deceased was capable of narrating her statement – The substance of the dying declaration is also borne out by the medical history of the patient recorded by the doctor which has also been proved in evidence – Further, though there are inconsistencies and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses, there is however convergence with the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor – That being the position, the evidence on record, particularly Ex. 59, clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt – That being the position, this Court is inclined to accept the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex. 59) as a valid piece of evidence. [Paras 24, 35] Evidence – Dying Declaration – Sole basis for conviction: Held: Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration – However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring – Once such a conclusion is reached, a great deal of sanctity is attached to a dying declaration then it can form the sole basis for conviction. [Para 25] Case Law Cited Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [1958] 1 SCR 552 : AIR (1958) SC 22; Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 2 SCR 666 : (1993) 2 SCC 684; Sher Singh v. State of Punjab [2008] 2 SCR 959 : (2008) 4 SCC 265; Sudhakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2012] 7 SCR 128 : (2012) 7 SCC 569 – relied on. Paniben (Smt.) v. State of Gujarat [1992] 2 SCR 197 : (1992) 2 SCC 474; Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2008] 8 SCR 956 : (2008) 5 SCC 468; Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2010] 9 SCR 705 : (2010) 8 SCC 514; Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 1 SCR 115 : (2013) 2 SCC 224 – referred to. 742 [2024] 6 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.