LexTEJRAM PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 2 S.C.R. 912 TEJRAM PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2009) FEBRUARY 26, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Evidence: Dying declaration relating to circumstances resulting in death of any other person - Admissibility of - Held: Dying declaration is admissible in relation to the 0 cause of death of the person making the statement and as to circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death - However, if the circumstances of the said transaction relate to death of another person, the statement cannot be held to be inadmissible when circumstances of E "his" death are integrally connected to the circumstances of death of such other person. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Whether statement of deceased-P is F relevant for determining cause of death of deceased- 5. The statement is admissible about the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the death of deceased-P. Question is what happens when two deaths take place in the same G transaction and circumstances of the transaction resulting in one death is closely interconnected with the other death. Admittedly, the DD of deceased-P is H 912 TEJRAM PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 913 admissible as to cause of her death as well as the A circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. Such statement may not by itself be admissible to determine the cause of death of anyone other than the person making the statement. However, when the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in B death of the person making the statement as well as death of any other person are part of the same transaction, the same will be relevant also about the cause of death of such other person. [Paras 18, 19 and 21] [921-8-F] C 2. In the instant case, the statement of pouring of kerosene on deceased-S, intervention of deceased-P in the process and her receiving burn injuries resulting in her death are integral part of the same transaction. D Thus, the statement which relates to circumstances of the transaction resulting in her death being admissible, it can be relied upon to show as to how death of deceased-S took place. The said statement was also corroborated by the admission of the accused himself E to the extent that the death of deceased-S was by burning and deceased-P received the burn injuries in the same incident. The version of the accused that it was suicide was rightly found to be false. In these F circumstances, the death of deceased-S was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be homicidal death by burning and by pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire by the accused. The said statement was duly recorded by the Magistrate and carried an endorsement G by the doctor about her consciousness and fitness to make a statement. [Paras 26, 27] [928-F-H; 929-A-C] Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) H 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A 4 SCC 116: 1985 (1) SCR 88 - relied on. Ratan Gond vs. State of BiharAIR 1959 SC 18:1959 SCR 1336 - distinguished. B Kashinath Tukaram Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 Crl. L.J. 1447; Lukka Ulahannen vs. Travancore- Cochin State AIR 1955 Trav-Co 104; Re P. Subbu Thevan (2 Weir 750 (B); Nga His Din vs. EmperiorAIR 1936 Rang 187; Kunwarpa/ Sirigh vs. Emperor AIR 1948 All 170 - c referred to. D E Case Law Reference 12002) 6 sec 110 relied on. Para 15 1984 Crl. L.J. 1447 referred to. Para 22 AIR 1955 Trav-Co 104 referred to. Para 22 1959 SCR 1336 distinguished. Para 23 1985 (1) SCR 88 relied on. Para 24 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2009. F From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2003. Kishor Lombad, S. Rajappa for the Appellant. G Prashant S. Kenjale, Aniruddha Mayee for the H Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. 1 This appeal has been TEJRAM PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 915 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.] preferred against the judgment and order dated 17th A November, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2003, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant has also b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.