LexTANUA RABIDAS versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 1142 TANUA RABIDAS V. STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No.1503 of 2007) SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Conviction and sentence under, on basis of the dying declaration - Prosecution case C that husband along with the co-accused present in the house, poured kerosene oil upon his wife and ignited her - Incident took place nine years after the marriage - Wife succumbed to the burn injuries in the hospital - On basis of the prosecution evidence and two dying declarations, conviction D of the husband uls. 302 and imposition of life imprisonment, by courts below - Held: There is no infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the courts below - Statement of the doctor. and the nurse that the victim made a dying declaration that her husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire E fully corroborated by prosecution witnesses - Victim not known to the doctor and the nurse nor they were interested witnesses - Evidence of the doctor and the nurse was a very important piece of evidence and there was no evidence to the contrary that any effort was made by anyone to induce the F deceased to make the false statement - Also, absence of smell of kerosene oil in the hair of the deceased sent for chemical examination does not render the dying declaration doubtful and unbelievable - Evidence. Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused G after nine years of marriage, along with co-accused present in the house, poured kerosene oil on his wife and set her on fire. The victim was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to the burn injuries. PW-1, brother of the H 1142 TANUA RABIDAS v. STATE OF ASSAM 1143 victim, lodged an FIR. Investigation was carried out. PW A 8 who had accompanied PW 1 to the hospital deposed that deceased had made a dying declaration in their presence stating that her husband had set her on fire. The doctor who conducted autopsy deposed that death was due to shock resulting from burn injuries. The victim B made a dying declaration before PW 6-doctor and PW 7- nurse working in the hospital,_ that her husband poured kerosene oil upon her and ignited it. On basis of the evidence and the two dying declarations, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. c 302 IPC and imposed life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the order. Hence, the instant appeal. ~ Dism1ssing the appeal, the Court HELD: On going through the evidence it is found D that the statement of PW-6-doctor and PW-7-nurse that the victim made a dying declaration that her husband poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire has been fully corroborated by PW-1 and PW-8. The submission that the evidence of PW-6 cannot be believed because E PW-6 did not inform the police about the dying declaration made by the deceased while she was brought to the hospital, cannot be accepted. lndisputedly, PW-6 and PW-7 came in contact with the victim only when she was brought to the hospital for F treatment. There is nothing on record to show that the victim was known to them. Further, they are not related to the victim nor they are interested witnesses. In that view of the matter, the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 is a very important piece of evidence and the trial court G rightly held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC as also affirmed by the High Court. Moreover on careful scrutiny, the Sessions Court was fully satisfied that the evidence of PW-6 was true and H 1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A there was no evidence to the contrary that any effort was made by anyone to induce the deceased to make the false statement. Further absence of smell of kerosene oil in the hair of the deceased sent for chemical examination does not render the dying declaration doubtful and 8 unbelievable. Thus, there is no infirmity or perversity in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. [Para 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18] [1147-G, H; 1148-A-C; E-G] Surinder Kumar v State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 173- C distinguished. D State of Rajasthan vs. Kishore 1996 (2) SCR 1103:(1996) 8 sec 217-relied on. Caes Law Reference : c2011) 10 sec 113 1996 (2) SCR 1103 distinguished relied on Para 16 Para 17 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal E No.1503 of 2007. From the Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.