RAVINDRA TRIMBAK PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 25-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 818 
RAVINDRA TRIMBAK PATIL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1963 of 2011) 
APRIL 25, 2014 
[T.S; THAKUR ANO GYAN SUOHA MISRA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: ss:306 and 498A rlw s.34 -
Suicidal death - Harassment and ill treatm.ent on account of 
C demand of dowry-Abetm(fnt to suicide- Conviction uJss.306 
and 498A rlw s.34 based on dying declaration - Held: 
Statement of victim-tfeceased recorded before· Executive 
Magistrate when she was conscious and in a fit state of mind 
which finally became a dying declaration after her death -
D Prosecution case fully supported by dying declaration which 
did not suffer from any blemish or infirmity and was supported · 
by medical evidence and evidence of other. witnesses 
corroborating the prosecution case - Deceased having died 
within seven years of her marriage, there is a clear 
E presumption that the charge against the appellant-husband 
u/s.306 stood fully established - No interference with the 
conviction order - Crime against women. 
The prosecution case was that the appellant-
husband harassed his wife on account of demand of 
F . dowry and due to continuous ill treatment, she poured 
kerosene oil on her person and set herself on fire and the' 
next day she succumbed to burn injuries. A statement of 
the victim was recorded by police before the Executive 
Magistrate. The trial court convicted the appellant and his 
G mother under section 306 and 498A r/w section 34 IPC 
on the basis of the dying declaration. The High 'court 
maintained the conviction. Hence the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the court 
H 
818 
RAVINDRA TRIMBAK PATIL v. STATE OF 
819 
MAHARASF-ITRA 
HELD: The judgment and order of the trial court as 
A 
also the High Court are well-reasoned on all aspects and 
same is not interfered with on the plea that the deceased 
was suffering from mental illness which had driven her 
to commit suicide and the dying declaration which was 
recorded before the Executive Magistrate soon after the 
B 
occurrence should be ignored. In the wake of dying 
declaration recorded primarily after the incident and the . 
·witnesses who had arrived at the scene of occurrence 
corroborating the prosecution case, there was no further 
need to probe.the evidence merely to accept the defence c 
case that the reason for the death of the deceased was 
due to her mental illness ignoring the version given out 
in the dying declaration when the deceased was 
conscious and in a fit state of mind to get her statement 
recorded which finally became a dying declaration after D 
her death. The prosecution case being fully supported by 
the dying declaration which did not suffer from any 
blemish or infirmity supported by medical evidence and 
evidence of other witnesses corroborating the 
prosecution case, it is not a fit case for interference. 
Above all, the deceased having died within seven years 
E 
of her marriage, there is a clear presumption that the 
charge against the appellant under Section 306 IPC stood 
fully established apart from the fact that the prosecution 
was supported even by the dying declaration of the 
deceased recorded before the executive magistrate. It is 
thus not a case where further scrutiny of the evidence led 
by the prosecution was required merely to uphold the 
findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court. 
[Para 9] (822-D-H; 823-A-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1963 of 2011 . 
F 
G 
. From the Judgment & Order dated 18.12.2009 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in 
Criminal Appeal No. 52/1998. 
.H 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Anagha S. Desai, Satyajit A Desai; Somnath Padha, Vipul 
B 
Ganda for the Appellant. · · 
Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent. 
. ' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1. The appellant is in appeal 
before us against the judgment of 'the High Court. of Bombay, 
I 
Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1998, 
· whereby the High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal of 
c the appellant herein and his mother (accused No.2) and thereby 
confirmed his conviction un~er Sections 306 and 498A read 
with Section 34 IPC sentencin9 him to RI for 3 years and 2 
years respectively .as awarded by Ld. Sessions Judge, 
Jalgaon. The High Court in the said app_eal maintained the 
D conviction of accused No.2 under the above sections, but 
reduced the sentence to the period of impris

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