Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 702 (BOM)

Laxmibai w/o Dhanraj Moon v. State of Maharashtra

2012-03-29

P.V.HARDAS, SADHANA S.JADHAV

body2012
Judgment Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. The appellants are convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. and are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-each in default to undergo R.I. for six months in Sessions Case No.136/2010 by a judgment and order dated 10.10.2011. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellants herein have filed the present criminal appeal. 2. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:- The present appellants were residing in their matrimonial house at village Ajanti, tahsil Hinganghat. Discordant note has struck in their matrimonial life and, therefore, they were constrained to reside with their parents. Their sisters-in-law i.e. the wife of their brother Govinda did not like the appellants staying in their matrimonial house. According to the prosecution, on 24.5.2010 at about 2 p.m., the appellants had raised a quarrel with their sister-in-law Chandrakala on the ground that she had not prepared the courtyard with cow dung. In the course of quarrel, it is alleged that the appellants poured kerosene on the person of Chandrakala and thereafter Laxmibai set her ablaze. Chandrakala then raised shouts. Upon hearing her shouts, her co-sister (wife of her brother-in-law) namely Indirabai extinguished the fire by pouring water on her and then admitted her in Sub District Hospital at Hinghanghat. The Medical Officer on duty informed the Police at out post in the hospital about admission of Chandrakala. Thereafter the statement of Chandrakala was recorded by Haridas Mohije. In the said statement, Chandrakala had disclosed that on 24.5.2010 at about 2 p.m. her sisters-in-law i.e. the present appellants raised a quarrel with her and then they brought kerosene from the house and poured it on her person and Laxmibai set her ablaze. On the basis of the said statement, PSI had registered an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC. The oral report is at Exh.22 and the copy of the first information report in the prescribed proforma is at Exh.24. 3. The prosecution has further alleged that on the same day at about 5 p.m., the statement of Chandrakala was recorded by the Executive Magistrate PW5 Rohini Bakde. The said statement is at Exh.57. The oral report is at Exh.22 and the copy of the first information report in the prescribed proforma is at Exh.24. 3. The prosecution has further alleged that on the same day at about 5 p.m., the statement of Chandrakala was recorded by the Executive Magistrate PW5 Rohini Bakde. The said statement is at Exh.57. In the said statement, Chandrakala has alleged that she was standing in the kitchen with her son. At that time her both sisters-in-law came from behind and poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. Thereafter Indirabai poured water on her person and extinguished the fire. Her husband was out of station. On 26.5.2010, the statement of Chandrakala was again recorded by ASI Mohd. Mustafa. The said statement is also recorded in a printed proforma which is marked at Exh.60. In the said statement which is at Exh.60, Chandrakala is alleged to have disclosed that the male members were not at home. At that time, her sisters-in-law raised a quarrel with her on account of not preparing the courtyard with the cow dung and then they poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Indirabai had extinguished the fire and thereafter her husband had admitted her in the hospital and then she was further admitted in Sewagram Hospital. Chandrakala succumbed to the burns on 22.7.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. Thereafter section 302 of IPC was added. Hence the case mainly rests upon three dying declarations of Chandrakala. The accused were arrested on 25.5.2010. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No.136/2010. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused. The documentary evidence is in the form of the spot panchanama which is at Exh. 26, the inquest panchanama which is marked at Exh.34, the post mortem notes which are at Exh.35, the medical certificate of the Hinganghat Hospital which is at Exh.49 and the dying declarations which are at Exhs.22, 57 and 60. 4. To evaluate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is necessary to firstly appreciate the dying declarations which is at Exh.22. PW2 Haridas Mohije was attached to Police Station Hinganghat on 24.5.2010. 4. To evaluate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is necessary to firstly appreciate the dying declarations which is at Exh.22. PW2 Haridas Mohije was attached to Police Station Hinganghat on 24.5.2010. At about 3 to 3.15 p.m. , he received an information from Medical Officer of Sub District Hospital, Hinganghat that one lady namely Chandrakala was admitted in the hospital with history of burns. He, therefore, went to the Hospital, obtained the opinion of the Medical Officer in respect of the fitness of the patient to give her statement and thereafter recorded the statement of Chandrakala. According to him, she had disclosed that her sisters-in-law were annoyed with her as she had not prepared the courtyard by spreading cow dung on it. Thereafter her sisters-in-law brought kerosene from the house, poured on her and Laxmi set her ablaze by igniting the match stick. Chandrakala further disclosed that Indirabai had extinguished the fire and admitted her in the hospital. PW2 claims to have read over the statement to her and the patient verified it to be correct. According to him on the basis of the allegations levelled in the statement, he registered an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC. In the cross-examination, PW2 claims to have received oral information about the admission of Chandrakala in the hospital. In the cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that he had not inquired as to who had admitted the patient. However, in the very next breathe, PW2 has deposed that the persons who had admitted Chandrakalabai were present with her when he recorded the statement. On perusal of Exh.22, it appears to us that the deponent has not disclosed the place where she was set on fire by her sisters-in-law. 5. PW3 Dr. Minakshi Wavare has deposed before the Court that on 24.5.2009 she was attached to Sub District Hospital, Hinganghat. At about 4 p.m. Chandrakala Govindrao Bhagat was admitted in the hospital with history of burns. Pursuant to the intimation given to the Police , the Police Officer had come to the hospital to record the statement of Chandrakala. PW3 claims to have given her opinion on the requisition letter which is at Exh.21. According to her, besides herself and the Police Officer, nobody was present. On 24.5.2010 itself at about 5 p.m., the Executive Magistrate had, after obtaining opinion from PW3, recorded the statement of Chandrakala. PW3 claims to have given her opinion on the requisition letter which is at Exh.21. According to her, besides herself and the Police Officer, nobody was present. On 24.5.2010 itself at about 5 p.m., the Executive Magistrate had, after obtaining opinion from PW3, recorded the statement of Chandrakala. PW3 was present when the statement was recorded. In the cross-examination, PW3 has admitted that the certificates on the dying declarations which are at Exhs. 50 and 51 are not in her handwriting but she has only scribed her signature, date and time. The handwriting on the said certificates are that of the Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration. PW3 has admitted in her cross-examination that it was the first instance during her tenure as a Medical Officer at Sub District Hospital, Hinganghat that the dying declarations were being recorded in her presence. She has issued the injury certificate which is at Exh.49. Upon perusal of Exh.49, it appears that there is an endorsement of history of kerosene burns. The patient had sustained burn injuries to the extent of 45 %. The burn injuries on left and right hand were to the extent of 9% each, on the head it was 9% and on the trunk to the extent of 18 %. It also appears that she was referred to Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences Kasturba Hospital, Sewagram on the same day i.e. on 24.5.2010 at about 7.16 p.m. PW4 Dr. Santosh Raut was R.M.O. at Sewagram, Hospital. According to him on 25.5.2010 a police personnel approached him and sought the information in respect of the fitness of patient Chandrakala. PW4 endorsed that she was in a fit condition to give the statement and in his presence the statement of Chandrakalabai was recorded but by the Police. In the cross-examination, PW4 has admitted that it is not mentioned on the said dying declaration that the statement was read over to Chandrakala and she admitted it to be correct. On perusal of the dying declaration which is at Exh.60, we find that the date mentioned by the Doctor while giving this certificate which is at Exh.54, the date mentioned is "26.5.10". The Doctor i.e. PW4 was not confronted by the said endorsement. 6. PW5 Rohini Bakde was serving as Naib Tahsildar. According to her on 24.5.2010, her services were requisitioned for recording the dying declaration of Chandrakala Bhagat. The Doctor i.e. PW4 was not confronted by the said endorsement. 6. PW5 Rohini Bakde was serving as Naib Tahsildar. According to her on 24.5.2010, her services were requisitioned for recording the dying declaration of Chandrakala Bhagat. On 24.5.2010 at 5 p.m. she approached the Sub District Hospital, Hinganghat. She claims to have inquired with the Medical Officer about the fitness of the patient and thereafter recorded her statement. PW5 has proved the contents of the said dying declaration and has proved Exh.57. In the cross-examination, PW5 has admitted that the Police had taken her to Sub District Hospital, Hinganghat. She has also admitted that she has not mentioned in the dying declaration that she had read over the statement to the burnt patient and that she admitted it to be correct. 7. PW6 Mohammad Mustafa is the ASI who recorded the statement of Chandrakala on 25.5.2010 at Sewagram Hospital. According to PW6, on 25.5.2010 he approached the Medical Officer at Wardha and sought his opinion about the fitness of Chandrakala to give her dying declaration. The Medical Officer opined that she is fit to give her statement. Thereafter PW6 inquired with the patient. He called one lady relative of the burnt patient inside the ward as a witness. According to him, the burnt patient informed him that on 24.5.2010 her sisters-in-law namely Laxmibai and Ujwala set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on account of not preparing the courtyard with cow dung. She further informed that she was rescued by the wife of the brother of her husband and then her husband admitted her in the Government Hospital and subsequently in Sewagram Hospital. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that in column no.1, the date and time of recording the dying declaration is not mentioned. 8. The prosecution has examined PW1 Dewangana Bhagat who is the wife of the younger brother of the husband of Chandrakala. PW1 is declared hostile by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that deceased Chandrakala had studied upto 10th standard, that she was hot tempered and that she disliked the sisters-in-law staying at their house. She has also admitted that Chandrakala had returned from outstation just one day preceding the incident and that ever since she returned, she appeared to be disturbed and perturbed. In the cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that deceased Chandrakala had studied upto 10th standard, that she was hot tempered and that she disliked the sisters-in-law staying at their house. She has also admitted that Chandrakala had returned from outstation just one day preceding the incident and that ever since she returned, she appeared to be disturbed and perturbed. The admission of PW1 would clearly establish the temperament of Chandrakala which needs to be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence. 9. The spot panchanama is not disputed by the accused and is admitted by the defence counsel under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. The contents of the spot panchanama would show that the incident has occurred inside the room, that the burnt clothes were below the cot and small can of one litre was on the cot and half the can was filled with the kerosene. A match box was lying on half burnt saree and was smelling of kerosene. The spot panchanama was conducted on 24.5.2010 between 4 to 5 p.m. The funding of the kerosene can on the cot would establish that the incident has occurred in the room. However, in the dying declaration at Exh.22, it is stated that the accused persons had brought kerosene from the house, which would imply that the incident had occurred outside the house. 10. The post mortem notes at Exh.35 are also admitted by the defence. Column no.17 of the post mortem notes would show that: "(i) Head, neck, face -05 %. (Evidence of burn of some scalp hairs. Dermoepidermal) (ii) Right upper limb -08%. (Medial side show healing with shoulder region and palm spare dermo-epidermal) (iii) Left upper limb -09%.(Medial side show healing with shoulder -dermoepidermal) (iv) Front of trunk -18%.(Evidence of healing breast and lateral surface dermoepidermal) (v) Back of trunk -18%. (Evidence of healing lateral surface dermo-epidermal) (vi) Genitalia -0 %. (vii) Right lower limb -0%. (viii) Left lower limb -0%." The injuries at serial no.1 appeared to be the result of singeing. The said injuries are superficial. The other injuries were in the process of healing. However, it is clear that the deceased had sustained injuries only on the front portion extending from the shoulder to the trunk. Thus an inference can be drawn that the incident must have occurred when she was in a sitting position. The said injuries are superficial. The other injuries were in the process of healing. However, it is clear that the deceased had sustained injuries only on the front portion extending from the shoulder to the trunk. Thus an inference can be drawn that the incident must have occurred when she was in a sitting position. Absence of injuries on the lower portion of the body would further establish that the position of the deceased when the incident must have occurred. This evidence has to be read in consonance with the recitals of the spot panchanama which would show that the half filled can of kerosene containing about 1/2 litre were placed on the cot. Chandrakala has not stated in her dying declaration at Exhs. 22 and 60 as to where the incident had occurred. She has neither stated in the said statements as to what she was doing when the incident has occurred but has simply stated that the accused had brought kerosene from the house. The spot panchanama read along with the post mortem notes would lean more towards a case of suicide than a case of homicide. 11. It is not sufficient that a dying declaration has been recorded by Police/Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate and proved to have been recorded by following all precautionary measures. There is no particular form to be employed in making a dying declaration. There must, however, be a distinct and definite assertion on the part of maker. It is necessary that the dying declaration should inspire confidence of the Court. The truthfullness of the contents of the dying declaration can be judged only on the basis of the surrounding and extenuating circumstances and more so since the deponent is not available for affirming the contents of the said statement. It is not that a conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the dying declaration unless there is corroborating evidence. However, the truthfullness has to be borne out from the plain reading of the dying declaration without addition or subtraction. A dying declaration in fact stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence. Though corroboration is not essential, its introduction and existence is otherwise expedient to strengthen the evidentiary value of the declaration. A dying declaration in fact stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence. Though corroboration is not essential, its introduction and existence is otherwise expedient to strengthen the evidentiary value of the declaration. In the present case, PW1 has turned hostile. The prosecution has not examined Indirabai who has been named in the dying declarations at Exhs. 22 and 57 as the person who had admitted her in the hospital. All these circumstances restrain us from considering the dying declarations as the truthful narration of facts by the deponent. 12. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjay s/o Digambarrao Rahhans reported in 2004 (9) SCALE 50 has held that: "the version of homicide set up by the prosecution as well as the version of suicide set up by the accused appear to be highly improbable and do not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to believe either version. In this state of things, when two incredible versions confront the Court, the Court has to give benefit of doubt to the accused and it is not safe to sustain the conviction". In the present case, the surrounding circumstances lean more towards suicide rather than a case of homicidal death. 13. Now reverting to the three dying declaration which are at Exhs.22, 57 and 60. In Exh.22 Chandrakala has stated that at about 2 p.m. the accused/appellants raised a quarrel with her on account of not preparing the courtyard with dung and poured kerosene on her. Laxmi poured kerosene on her and Laxmi ignited the match stick. According to her, her husband had been out of station i.e. he had been to Seloo. In Exh.57, Chandrakala has stated that she was standing in the kitchen along with her son. At that time, her sisters-in-law came and poured kerosene on her and ignited the match stick. In the said statement she has maintained that her husband was out of station. In the statement at Exh.57, she has maintained that her husband was out of station. At that time, her sisters-in-law came and poured kerosene on her and ignited the match stick. In the said statement she has maintained that her husband was out of station. In the statement at Exh.57, she has maintained that her husband was out of station. In the statement at Exh.57, the spot of incident is shown as the kitchen room and according to the deponent she was in a standing position along with her son who was cradled in her arms. The spot panchanama shows that the incident has occurred in the living room and the bottle of kerosene was found on the cot. It is also revealed in the spot panchanama that the curtains were also burnt. This would show that the incident has occurred in the living room. The burnt clothes of the deceased were also scattered in the said room. In the statement which is at Exh.60, the deponent has stated that there was no male member in the house. The accused/appellants had raised a quarrel with her and then poured kerosene on her. She raised shouts and was saved by the wife of her brother-in-law. She has further stated that her husband had admitted her in the Government Hospital. She has also stated that her statement was recorded in the Government Hospital and then she was referred to the Hospital at Sewagram. 14. A dying declaration has to be read as a whole. One cannot pick and choose the contents of the dying declaration and convict on the basis of incriminating material. The consistency has to be as a whole. In the present case , we find that in the dying declarations at Exhs. 22 and 57, Chandrakala has stated that no male members were present in the house. However, in the statement at Exh.60, she has stated that her husband has admitted her in the hospital. At the threshhold, she had stated that no male member was present in the house. However, in the very next breath she has stated that her husband had admitted her in the hospital. Secondly in the dying declaration at Exh.22, the act of igniting the match stick is attributed to Laxmi. However, in the dying declarations at Exhs. 57 and 60, it is stated that both the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. 15. Secondly in the dying declaration at Exh.22, the act of igniting the match stick is attributed to Laxmi. However, in the dying declarations at Exhs. 57 and 60, it is stated that both the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. 15. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Parveen Kumar reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6897, the Apex Court has held that : "while appreciating the credibility of the evidence produced before the Court, the Court must view evidence as a whole and come to a conclusion as to its genuineness and truthfulness. The mere fact that two different versions are given, but one name is common in both of them cannot be a ground for convicting named person. The Court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful. If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declaration." 16. The only incriminating circumstance consistent in all three dying declarations is the allegation that the sisters-in-law had caused burn injuries to Chandrakala. However, in all the three dying declarations, Chandrakala has categorically stated that the accused had withdrawn from their matrimonial home and were staying in the family of the deceased and that they used to raise quarrel with her quite often. It can also be inferred that Chandrakala disliked the very presence of her sisters-in-law in her matrimonial home and had attempted to teach them a lesson. However, she succumbed to the injuries. In the above mentioned circumstances, the dying declarations at Exhs. 22, 57 and 60 cannot be held to be truthful and hence do not inspire the confidence of the Court. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha deserves to be quashed and set aside. The criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellants, be refunded to them. Since the appellants are in Jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.