'
,.._ ..
1209
VASANT NARAYAN PAWAR
,.,
STATE OF MAHARASIITRA
December 19, 1979
[V._ R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J
JJy;ng declaration-Relevancy-Even though the deceased has been set fire to
by her husband, while making a statement she pleads that her husband should not
be beaten---JVhether such a request could be converted ~nto on~ cxculpatil'e of the
accused-Section 32 of the Evidence A ct.
Dismissing the special leave petition, th'e Court
HELD : The statement by the dying tragic woman that her husband should
not be beaten, even though she was dying having been burnt, cannot be conv'erted
into one ..::xcuip"tive of the accused.
This is a sentiment too toff..::hing for tears
and stems from the values of the 'culture of the Indian womanhood. [1210A·BJ
Observation :
Police sensitisation mechanisms which ~'ill prevent commission of crimes like
wife burning must be set up if these horrendous crimes are to bf: avoided. Like-
wise, special provisions facilitating easier proof of such special class of rnurders
on establishing certain basi~ facts must be provided for by appropriate legislation.
Law must nse to the challenge of shocking criminology, especially ·when helpless
women are the victims and the crime is committed in th'e secrPr;y of the husband's
home. [1210C-EJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 2636 of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25-4-1979 of the Bombay
tt;gh Court in Criminal Appeal No. 822/77.
Pramod Swarup (Amicus Curiae) for the Petitioner.
H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
B
c
D
E
F
KRISHNA IYER, J.--Shri Pramod Swamp appearing as amicus curiae
G
bas presented the case of the accused as effectively as the record per-
mits. Indeed, he has gone to the extent of pressing into service points
which do not appear to us to have any force. Moreover, be has tried
to persuade us to believe that a dying declaration made by the lady
who was burnt to death by the husband-accused-that i, the charge on
which the trial court and the High Court have found the petitioner
II
guilty--is exonerative of the accused-husband and dues not implicate
him as tl!.e Court has construed. The declarant as she was dyini: was
\
\
j
I
-~
1210
StJPREMll COURT !!.!!PORTS
[1980] 2 s.c.R.
"
conscious enough to make a statement and in one of the several state-
ments she made, it would appear, she said when her husband was being
beaten up that even though she had been burnt, her husband should
not be beaten. This is a sentiment too touching for tears and stems
from the values of the culture of the Indian womanhood. A wife when
B
c
I)
E
she has been set fire to by her !Jusband, true to her tradition, does not
want her husband to be assaulted brutally. It is this sentiment which
prompted this dying tragic woman to say that even if she was dying
having been burnt, her husband should not be beaten. We are unable
to appreciate how this statement can be converted into one cxculpative
of the accused.
Anyway, we are mentioning these facts only because
Shri Pramod Swarup contended that they were weighty circumstances
sufficient to cancel the conviction.
Wife burning tragedies are becoming too frequent for the country
to be complacent. Police sensitisation mechanisms which will prevent
the commission of such crimes must be set up if these horrendous
crimes are to be avoided.
Likewise, special provisions facilitating
easier proof of su~h special class of murders on establishing ceitain
basic facts must be provided for by appropriate legislation. Law must
rise to the challenge of shocking criminology, especialiy when helpless
women are the victims and the crime is committed in th_e secrecy of the
husband's home-
We hope the State's concern for the weaker sections
of the community will be activised into appropriate machinery nnd
procedure. We dismiss the special leave petition.
S.R.
Petition dismissed.
GIPF-!38SCI/80-12 • 11-80
·-1
Lex