http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRIPATRAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/08/1999

BENCH: G.T.Nanavati, S.N.Phukan

JUDGMENT:

     The  following  Judgment  of the Court  was  delivered NANAVATI.  J

     The  appellant  has been convicted under Sections  302 and  498A  IPC,  for causing death of his  wife  by  pouring kerosene  over  her body and setting her abiaze.   The  High Court  dismissed  the  appeal as it did not  find  any  good reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.

     U) have gone through the evidence and we find that a1l the  eight dying declarations are almost consistent.  One of them  was made to Doctor H.S.  Maharaj (P.W.-1) to whom  she was  taken for treatment.  He has clearly deposed that  soon after  Meena was admitted in the hospital at 7.30 a.m.,  she had  told  him that her husband had poured kerosene  on  her clothes  and  set her ablaze.  This was told to  the  doctor when he had tried to ascertain from her how she had received burns.   The  doctor made a note of it in the case papers  ( Ex.14).  The

     evidence  of  Dr.  Meharaj thus receives support  from contemporaneous  document.   The  doctor had  no  reason  to falsely  depose against the accused or to prepare false case papers.

     The  doctor  has further stated that he  had  informed Police  Sub-inspector of Umri Police station that Meena  was brought  to  the  hospital  with burns  at  7.20  a.m.   and thereafter had also written a letter (Ex.  13) to the P.S.I. for getting her dying declaration recorded.  The said letter (Ex.   13)  was  written  at 8.50  a.m.   The  police  after receiving  the  same had forwarded the same to  the  Special Executive Magistrate, Shri Sharma(P.W.-8) who received it at 10  a.m..  Mr.  Sharma had then proceeded to Umri dispensary and  after  ascertaining fitness of Meena from Dr.   Maharaj (P.W.I)  and also after ascertaining it himself had recorded her  dying declaration (Ex.  32).  In his cross-examination, he  admitted that the said dying declaration was not in  his hand  but in fact it was written by one constable as it  was difficult  to write with his trembling hand.  Merely because that  fact  is not mentioned in.  the dying  declaration  it cannot be regarded as suspicious.  It bears signature of the doctor  and  also that of the Executive Magistrate.   It  is also  true  as  contended  by the learned  counsel  for  the appellant  that  no  time  is mentioned in  the  said  dying declaration.  That cannot also affect genuinness of the said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

dying  declaration  as  there is nothing to  show  that  the Executive  Magistrate  was  not   telling  the  truth.   The Executive  Magistrate had received the requisition at  10.00 a.m.   and  Meena  was shifted at 11.00 a.m.  from  Umrl  to Civil  Hospital  at  Nanded.  Therefore, her  statement  was recorded between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m..

     At  Nanded,  her  dying declaration  was  recorded  by Sub-Judicial  Magistrate Shrl Sahdev (P.W.  2) at about 3.30 p.m..   We do not find any infirmity either in his  evidence or  in trie manner of recording the dying declaration.   The only  suggestion  made  to  this witness  was  that  he  had prepared  the dying dec1aration( Ex.  21) as desired by  one Laxman  and the Police Patil.  This suggestion was denied by him.   We do not find any material on record to suggest that Sub-Judicial  Magistrate  was under any influence  of  those persons  or  he had any reason to oblige them.  These  three dying  declarations,  6part from other  dying  declarations, being  reliable and truthful were rightly relied upon by the Courts below.

     The  High Court was therefore right in confirming  the conviction  of the appellant and dismissing his appeal.   As we do not find any sustance in this appea) it 1s dismissed.