Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Smt Pushpabai Marotrao Paraskar (appellant no. 1) and Narendra Marotrao Paraskar (appellant no. 2) by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions Case No. 160 of 2006. The appellants were convicted for the murder of Maya, the wife of Mahendra (son of appellant no. 1 and brother of appellant no. 2), under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were also convicted under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC for cruelty and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case was that Maya was ill-treated by the appellants for failing to bring money from her parents and for not conceiving. On 13 May 2006, at about 9:00 am, the appellants quarreled with Maya, appellant no. 1 poured kerosene on her, appellant no. 2 held her, and appellant no. 1 lit a matchstick and set her on fire. Maya shouted for help, neighbors gathered and poured water, and she was taken to Irwin Hospital, Amravati. Three dying declarations of Maya were recorded. Initially, offences under Sections 498A and 307 IPC were registered, but after Maya died from burn injuries, the offence was converted to Section 302 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the dying declarations and other evidence. The appellants appealed, arguing that the dying declarations at Exhibits 46 and 49 were unreliable. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declarations, and found that the dying declarations were consistent, voluntary, and corroborated by medical evidence. The court held that the dying declarations were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court also noted that the appellants did not lead any defence evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Reliability - The court examined the evidentiary value of three dying declarations made by the victim. The court held that when multiple dying declarations are consistent and voluntary, they can form the sole basis for conviction. The court found that the dying declarations at Exhibits 46 and 49 were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances, and thus reliable. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Bride Burning - The appellants, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, were convicted for pouring kerosene on the victim and setting her on fire. The court upheld the conviction, noting that the dying declarations clearly implicated both appellants in the act. The court rejected the argument that the dying declarations were tutored or unreliable. (Paras 2, 6) C) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The victim was subjected to cruelty for not bringing money and not conceiving. The court upheld the conviction under Section 498A, as the dying declarations and other evidence established cruelty. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations of the victim are reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 302 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are upheld.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- Section 32 Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 498A IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- credibility of dying declaration
- multiple dying declarations
- conviction based on dying declaration
