LexVITHAL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B VITHAL v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA NOVEMBER I, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32-Multiple dying dec/arations- Conviction, on basis thereof-Correctness of-Held: All dying declarations C named the accused-There is no inconsistency therein-Dying delcarations were corroborated by prosecution witnesses-Also it cannot be discarded for being in question answer form-Thus, dying declarations are reliable- Further, non-examination of persons not witness to the occurrence not prejudicial to accused-Testimony of deceased's mother cannot be discarded because she was interested witness-Accused had motive to commit ojfence- D Thus, order of courts below convicting the accused under Section 302 upheld- Penal Code, 1860-Section 302. A quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased. Appelliiht poured kerosenes on the deceased and lit the fire leading to 98% burn E injuries on the body of the deceased. Ten days prior to the incident also, after an altercation between the parties, appellant had caused injuries to the deceased. Four dying delcarations of the deceased were recorded. The prosecution examined witnesses. Sesi.ions judge discarded three dying declarations, however relying upon one, held appellant guilty under section 302 IPC. High Court held the four dying declarations to be reliable and upheld p the conviction order. Hence, the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. Dying declarations which were four in number were made before different authorities including a Magistrate who was examined as G prosecution witnesses. Both the Trial Judge as also the High Court found the dying declaration to be reliable. Thus, there is no reason to differ with the opinion of the courts below. [238-B-C) 1.2. A dying declaration if found to be acceptable, the same need not be described to be in question and answer form. In. all the dying declarations the ll 234 VITHAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 235 appellant had been named. There does not exist any inconsistency therein. A Dying declaration although are more than one, but being not contradictory to and in consistent with each other, there is no reason as to why reliance should not be placed thereupon. The Court while considering the credibility of such dying declaration may seek corroboration. Mother of the deceased in her evidence categorically stated that the deceased had stated that it was the B appellant who had poured kerosene. She saw the deceased in flames and also saw accused running away from the place of incident. (238-C; 239-F-Hl 1.3. Brothers of the deceased wh:> came immediately after the occurrence hearing the shouts, were not witnesses to the occurrence. Their non-examination did not prejudice the appellant as they neither saw the C incident nor saw him running away from the scene of occurrence. They merely extinguished the fire and took the deceased to the hospital. [240-A-B] 1.4. The submission of appellant that the appellant was inimically disposed towards deceased is not matter which by itself would lead to a conclusion that the prosecution case should not be believed. He had a motive [) to commit the offence. He had caused injuries to the deceased ten days prior to the incident. He picked up quarrel with him even on the date on which offence took place. The offence took place near the house of the deceased., The deceased in his dying declaration not only named the appellant but also·· gave other details which were vital in nature. The testimony of the mother of the deceased should not be discarded only because she is an interested E witness. Further, the submission that the appellant in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. had made out a case of self-immolation by the deceased and that he had been falsely implicated, cannot be given any credence as no such case was made out. Even to the mother of the deceased, no such suggestion had been given. [240-C-F] Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2004] 9 SCC 713, distinguished. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, [2002] 6 SCC 710 and Balbir Singh andAnr. v. State of Punjab, (2006) 9 SCALE 537, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1336 of 2005. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 14.6.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Cr!. A. No. 256of1995. S.V. Deshpande for the Appellant. F G H 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.