LexSANJAY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SANJAY v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA MARCH 8, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 498-A/34 and 306134-Married woman setting herself ablaze- C Death caused by burn i'!iuries-Three dying declarations made by victim- ln first one she did not implicate her husband-In the second and the third dying declarations she stated that she poured kerosene on herself as she was angry with her husband-Held, in view of different dying declarations it would not be safe to uphold conviction of husband and it cannot be said that D prosecution has proved his guilt uls 306 beyond reasonable doubt-Husband- appellant acquitted giving him benefit of doubt-Evidence-Different dying declarations-Evidentiary value of Appellant, along with his parents was prosecuted under sections 498- A/34 and 306/34 IPC. The prosecution case was that in the night between E · 28.12.1994 and 29.12.1994 the appellant-husband returned home at midnight in a drunken state. There was a quarrel_ between the couple and the wife poured kerosene on her and set herself afire. She was rushed to the hospital. In the hospital three dying declarations were made by her. The first one was recorded by the Doctor, thereafter another dying declaration was recoded by the Executed Magistrate on the same day and the third one was recorded by PW- F 14 on the following day. Ultimately, the injured succumbed to the burn injuries. The trial court acquitted appellant's parents but convicted him of the offences charged. The appeal of the husband having been dismissed by the High Court, he filed the present appeal. G The State contested the appeal on the grounds that the second and the third dying declarations made by the deceased alleging that she comniitted suicide because there used to be quarrels between the couple, were corroborated by two letters dated 24.1.1999 and 26.7.1994 written by the deceased to her parents; and that the evidence of the parents of the deceased H 644 } ' - ' i J. ~ . SANJAYv. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 645 corroborated the unhappiness faced by her. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: In the instant case, the only evidence against the appellant are the three alleged dying declarations of the deceased. In the first dying declaration she stated that while she was pumping the stove it suddenly burst B and her saree caught fire; that she shouted loudly and her husband rushed towards her and extinguished the fire by pouring water on her. Nothing has been alleged against the appellant in it. Rather it shows that the appellant tried to save his wife. In the subsequent dying declarations she is said to have stated that she poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze because she was angry with her husband. In view of the different d} ing declarations it would C not be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant and he has to be given the benefit of doubt. It cannot be said in this case that the prosecution has proved the appellant's guilt under Section 306 IPC of abetting the suicide beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 12, 15 and 16( (647-B-C, H; 648-A) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 292 of D 2007. From the .Final Judgment and Order dated 17 .8.2006 of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 135/1996. A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. Th.e Judgment of the Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dated 17.8.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 1996. E F 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. G 4. The facts of the case are that the father of the appellant and the father of Seema were serving in Forest Department. They were also related. The appellant and Seema fell in love with each other. However, since they were within the prohibited degrees of relationship, the parents of both the appellant H > 646 SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS [2007) 3 S.C.R. A as well as Seema were against their marriage. Hence the appellant and Seema eloped from their parental houses and got married at Kato! on 9.4.1991. After ~ marriage they came back to Mouda. For some time, they resided separate from the appellant's parents, but after intervention of some relatives, they went to reside with the parents of the appellant. However, they could hot p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.