The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the acquittal given by the learned Sessions Judge for offenses under Sections 302,498-A and 306 of the IPC. A single judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice S.G. Mehare noted that the mental condition of the deceased was motivated adversely due to the immediate past events, and in such circumstances, ocular evidence would prevail over the statement of the deceased as to the cause of her death.
Brief Facts:
The brief facts of the case may be summarised that the Respondents and the deceased hailed from the same village. The deceased married Respondent no.1 and they had some marital disputes. She died within six months of her marriage. Due to the dispute, the Respondents went to reside at Omarga. The deceased was living alone in the house of the Respondent. On the day of the incident, there was the harvesting of the jowar in the field where the incident happened. The incident occurred on 27.10.2004 at about 1.30 pm. in the field.
The Petitioner/father of the deceased preferred the present revision impugning the judgment and order of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, in Sessions Case No.89 of 2004 dated 21.04.2007. The Respondents nos.2 to 5 were tried for the offenses punishable under Section 302, 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Submissions of the Applicant:
The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Court erroneously concluded the acquittal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the three statements of the deceased as to the cause of her death. Though the statements were consistent and free from variations about the allegations against the accused, the learned Sessions Judge unnecessarily gave weight to the evidence of the defense witnesses without testing their credibility and veracity correctly. The learned counsel further submitted that the statement of the deceased as to the cause of death has to prevail over the ocular evidence.
Observation of the Court:
This Court noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while appreciating the evidence of the relevant witnesses on the dying declarations, had correctly observed that the scrutiny of three dying declarations makes it abundantly clear that these dying declarations are inconsistent with each other except for catching of accused nos.1 to 3 and setting her on fire by accused no.4. He also observed that those dying declarations were motivated by animus and vindication. This Court further assessed the motive of the deceased going to the field with a kerosene can and a match stick as there was no reason to go to the field with such articles. This was taken as the relevant circumstance that may help to ascertain the mental condition of the deceased before the incident. The presence of some property dispute was also found by this Court between the deceased husband and her father.
Further, this Court, after bearing all the facts and catena of judgment on the dying declaration in mind, concluded that the above pre-incident events may have had a great impact on the deceased mind; therefore, she may have prepared her mind to end her life. Thus, it emerged to the Court that the mental condition of the deceased was motivated adversely due to the immediate past events, and the circumstances did not support the dying declaration. The evidence of ocular witnesses inspires the confidence which would prevail over the statement of the deceased as to the cause of her death. For the reasons stated above, the Court discarded the statement of the deceased as to her cause of death and agreed with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal given by the learned Sessions Judge.
Case Title: Shivkaran s/o Ganpati Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S.G. Mehare
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.169 OF 2007
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. N.G. Kale
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.B. Narwade
Read Judgment ;
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments