LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus NISAR RAMZAN SAYYED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 909 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. NISAR RAMZAN SAYYED (Criminal Appeal Nos. 865-866 of 2013) APRIL 07, 2017 [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- ss.302 and 498-A - Dowry death - Death A B by burning - Conviction and death sentence by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - Prosecution case was that the victim- C deceased was harassed by respondent-husband for not bringing money and on the fatefi1l day, respondent poured kerosene oil on the deceased and also threw her three year old son on her burning body - Both sustained burn injuries - Her son died on the spot due to burn injuries - Deceased succumbed to her injuries few days after the incident - Trial court convicted respondent ulss.302 and D 498-A and passed death sentence - High Court reversed the order of trial court - O'l appeal, held: There was no eye-witness of the incident and the prosecution was totally depending upon the dying declarations of the deceased - The role attributed to respondent was consistent with all the dying declarations whereby it was proved E beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondent had poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire - Each of the circumstances were established, the cumulative effect whereof showed that all the links in the chain were complete and the conclusion of the guilt was fully established - Respondent was guilty of the offence of causing death of his pregnant wife and minor child - As regards sentence, F confinement till natural life of the respondent ordered in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Sentencing in case of murder of wife and minor son - Held: The Law Commission of India has recommended the abolition of death penalty for all the G crimes other than terrorism related offences and waging war (offences affecting National Security) - Today capital punishment has become a distinctive feature of death penalty apparatus in India which somehow breaches the reformative theory of punishment under criminal law - Therefore, in the instant case, death sentence is not 909 H 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A awarded in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. B c D Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. There were three written dying declarations recorded before PW8-Doctor, PW7-ASI and Circle Inspector, respectively. Three oral dying declarations were given before PW-1, PW.:Z and PW-3, respectively. The role attributed to accused No.1 (respondent) was consistent in all the dying declarations whereby it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondent had poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire in their house itself during early hours of 29'h October, 2010. The demand of an amount of Rs.50,000/- by accused No.1 was also reiterated by the deceased in her dying declarations. The Medical Officer gave his opinion in the letter issued IJy PW7- ASI inquiring about the conscious mental state of the deceased while stating the cause of the burn injuries on the victim wife. [Para 6][914-E-G} 2. The spot Panchnama was duly proved by PWll- Investigating Officer of the case whereby recovery of kerosene mixed soil, burnt pieces of Saree and Blouse etc. was proved. The factum of pregnancy before death of deceased was also proved . by PW9-doctor. The typical conduct of the accused respondent E also described his guilty intention of neglecting his wife when she was on her death bed as there was no evidence on record to . prove that the respondent got the deceased admitted to the hospital. Respondent in his statement under Section 3:i 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had stated about the t'treat of F his wife committing suicide. He had further stated that he had made a complaint to Newasa Police Station. However, the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence on record whereby it was proved from the N.C. Register of Newasa Police Station that no such complaint was lodged by the respondent during the relevant days. On the date of the incident, the respondent and his deceased G wife were in their house and that the deceased met an unnatural deati1 was proved by medical evidence. Under these circumstances where there was no other eye-witness to the incident, the failure on the part of the accused respondent to explain how his pregnant wife and their minor child met with H unnatural death due to burn injur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.