Case Note & Summary
These cross-criminal appeals arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Beed in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2008. The trial court convicted appellants Keshav Sangale and Rajendra Sangale for the murder of Dropadabai, the second wife of Rajendra, and sentenced them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The other four accused, including Prayagbai (mother-in-law) and Sumanbai (first wife), were acquitted. The convicted accused appealed against their conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2010, while the State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 2010 challenging the acquittal. The prosecution case was that Dropadabai, who had been married to Rajendra for five years, was being harassed because she had no children while Rajendra’s first wife Sumanbai had two children. On the night of 4 September 2008, after a quarrel over food, Sumanbai assaulted Dropadabai. Her hands and legs were tied and she was not allowed to leave. At about 1:30 a.m. on 5 September 2008, while she was sleeping, Rajendra, Sumanbai, Vithal (brother-in-law), Prayagbai (mother-in-law), and Keshav (father-in-law) poured kerosene on her from a plastic can and set her on fire. Neighbours rushed in, threw water and a quilt to extinguish the fire, and took her to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. Investigation revealed that two dying declarations were recorded on 5 September 2008: the first by Special Judicial Magistrate Gorakshanath Ugarkar at 12:40 p.m. and the second by Police Sub-Inspector Umakant More at 5:30 p.m. In both, the deceased implicated her husband, his first wife, and in-laws. The post-mortem showed 100% superficial to deep burns and the cause of death was septicaemic shock. During the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Key witnesses included the Special Judicial Magistrate (PW3), doctors (PW4 and PW5), and the father of the deceased (PW7). PW7 and PW8 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Cross-examination of the Special Judicial Magistrate revealed that he did not record the patient’s physical condition—she was shouting in pain and demanding water—nor verified whether sedatives were administered. The doctor (PW5) stated that sedatives were not given, but the patient needed immediate saline and oxygen. The medical evidence also noted the absence of kerosene smell on the skin. The core legal issues were: whether the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC could be sustained on the basis of the two dying declarations despite the inconsistencies and the hostile witnesses; and whether the acquittal of the co-accused was justified. The defense likely challenged the reliability of the dying declarations, pointing to the failure to note the patient’s condition and the contradictions. The State, on the other hand, sought to rely on the dying declarations as the truthful account of a dying person. The court examined the evidence and the procedural aspects of recording the dying declarations. (Note: The provided excerpt of the judgment does not contain the final decision; therefore, the outcome of the appeals is not known from the available text.)
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 read with 34 IPC - Dying Declaration - The prosecution relied on two dying declarations recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate and a Police Sub-Inspector respectively. The deceased stated that her husband, his first wife, mother-in-law and father-in-law poured kerosene and set her on fire. The court examined the content and surrounding circumstances of these declarations. (Paras 6-7, 8, 13) B) Criminal Law - Hostile Witnesses - PW7 Namdeo Garje (father of deceased) and PW8 Ambadas Garge turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined them but they denied knowledge of the incident. (Paras 12-13) C) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Reliability - PW3 Special Judicial Magistrate who recorded the first dying declaration admitted during cross-examination that the deceased was shouting in pain and demanding water, yet he did not note her physical condition in the statement. He also did not verify whether sedatives were administered. These omissions were relevant to assessing the voluntariness of the declaration. (Para 8) D) Evidence - Medical Evidence - PW4 Dr. Sonali Bangar conducted the post-mortem and found 100% superficial to deep burns; the cause of death was septicaemic shock. No kerosene smell was detected on the skin. (Paras 9-10) E) Procedure - Recording of Dying Declaration - PW5 Dr. Sanjay Dube certified the fitness of the patient for the first dying declaration at 12:15 pm. The patient was in the burn ward with many relatives present; saline and oxygen were urgently needed. According to the doctor, sedatives were not given as per case papers. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC based on two dying declarations, and whether the acquittal of the other accused was valid.
Law Points
- Section 302 read with 34 IPC
- dying declaration
- appreciation of evidence
- hostile witness
- corroboration
- reliability of dying declaration
