RAJU DEVADE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 818 
RAJU DEVADE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. I 012 of2008) 
JUNE29,2016 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Conviction on basis of 
dying declaration - Death of 18 year old girl on sustaining burn 
injuries - Oral statement 111ade by the victi111 recorded by the Police 
sub-inspector -
Thereafte1~ Magistrate recorded dying declaration 
in question answer form and answers were recorded in own 
language of the victim - Both declarations had thumb impression 
· of the victim and victim had implicated the accused - Thereafter, 
victi111 shifted to another hospital ll'herein an Executive Magistrate 
recorded the dying declaration that it was a case of accidental death 
caused by falling of the chimney - Declaration not in yuestion 
answer form and did not bear thu111b impression of the victim -
Conviction by courts below relying on the oral state111ent and the 
first dying declarations made by the victim - On appeal, held: 
Conviction rightly recorded relying on the dying declaration of the 
deceased recorded by the Magistrate - Courts below rightly rejected 
the theory put up by the defence that it was accide11tal death - lt is 
proved on record that death was caused by burn injuries -
Prosecution by cogent evidences proved the prosecution case - Thus. 
accused rightly convicted for offence u/s. 302 - Evidence Act. 1872 
- s.32. 
Evidence Act. 1872 - s.32 - More than one c(ving declaration 
- Reliance upon - Duty of the court - Held: Each dying declaration 
is to be considered independently 011 its 011•11 merit and cannot be 
rejected because of the contents of the other - It is the duty of the 
court to consider each one of the111 in its correct perspective and 
-satisfy itself that which one of theui reflects the true state of affairs. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Each dying declaration has to be considered 
818 
RAJU DEVADE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
independently on its own merit so as to appreciate its evidentiary 
value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the 
other. Jn cases where there is more than one dying declaration, 
it is the duty of the court to consider the each one of them in its 
correct perspective and satisfy itself that which one of them 
reflects the true state of affairs. [Para 27) [830-H; 831-A) 
2.1 _In the instant case, the third dying declaration recorded 
by Executive Magistrate DWl, was not in question answer form. 
It is true that this court has laid down that merely because dying 
declaration was not in question answer form sanctity attached to 
dying declaration cannot be brushed aside nor its reliability can 
be doubted. The Sessions Judge rejected the third dying 
declaration not merely on the ground that it was not recorded in 
the question answer form but the Sessions Judge gave other valid 
reasons for not accepting the third dying declaration. [Paras 29, 
30] (831-F-H] 
2.2 Within an hour of incident on 04.03.1989 that is as soon 
as the victim arrived at the Hospital at about 10/10.30 pm police 
inspector came and took her oral statement in which she clearly 
stated that it was the accused who poured kerosene oil on her 
body and ignited the match-stick. The victim in her oral statement 
as well as in her dying declaration recorded by Magistrate also 
stated the motive of the accused. [Para 32] [832-B-C] 
2.3 It has come on the evidence of PW 4 that the victfm, her 
sister was having a love affair with the accused. She was pregnant 
and she asked the accused to marry her. On the day of the incident, 
she met the accused and repeated her request to him to marry 
her. The accused who was carrying a tin of kerosene then poured 
kerosene on the victim to finish he1~ since he never wanted to 
live with the accused and wanted to keep her out from his life. 
1Para_33] 83~-Dl 
819 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
2.4 The dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate 
G 
was witnessed by two employees of the hospital, who were present 
at tlie relevant time. There being no certificate of the doctor on 
04.03.1989 is of no consequences since it has come in the 
evidence that doctor was not present at the time when victim 
was taken to the hospital and there were only two employees i.e. 
H 
820 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 
a waterman and a maid-servant who were present in the Rural 
Hospital and attended the victim. The High Court

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