Bombay High Court Upholds Life Conviction for Murder by Burning in Kerosene Incident. Dying Declaration and Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient to Prove Guilt Under Section 302 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 155
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Santosh @ Sonu Balram Jadhav, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, for the murder of Rekha Raju Rathod under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on the night of 5th September 1998, the appellant entered the hut where Rekha lived with her children, questioned her behaviour, and demanded a meal. When she refused, he doused her with kerosene from a stove and set her ablaze with a lighted matchstick. The appellant then fled. Rekha's neighbour (PW2) saw her on fire and was asked to inform her uncle (PW5). PW5 informed Rekha's cousin (PW1). PW1 and PW2 heard Rekha state that the appellant had set her on fire. The appellant was arrested, tried, and convicted. On appeal, the Bombay High Court heard the appellant's counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor. The main contention for the appellant was that the dying declaration was not reliable. However, the court scrutinised the evidence and found that the oral dying declaration made by Rekha to PW1 and PW2 was consistent and credible. The court held that the Sessions Court had not erred in convicting the appellant, as the dying declaration was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Oral dying declaration made by deceased to her cousin and neighbour implicating the accused - Court held that the dying declaration was credible and consistent, and could form the sole basis for conviction - The appellant was convicted for murder by setting the deceased on fire after she refused to cook for him (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on oral dying declaration and circumstantial evidence is sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC are upheld. The appellant is entitled to set off for pre-conviction imprisonment.

Law Points

  • Dying declaration can be sole basis of conviction if credible
  • Section 302 IPC murder by burning
  • oral dying declaration to relatives and neighbours admissible
  • corroboration not essential if dying declaration inspires confidence
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 81

Criminal Appeal No.899 of 2000

2005-04-26

V.G. Palshikar, Smt. Nishita Mhatre

Mr. D.G. Khamkar (for Appellant), Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal (Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent)

Santosh @ Sonu Balram Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for murder of Rekha Raju Rathod by setting her on fire after she refused to cook for him.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.1323 of 1998 convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Issues

Whether the oral dying declaration made by the deceased is credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued that the dying declaration was not reliable. Additional Public Prosecutor supported the conviction, submitting that the dying declaration was consistent and credible.

Ratio Decidendi

An oral dying declaration made to relatives and neighbours, if found credible and consistent, can form the sole basis for conviction under Section 302 IPC without corroboration.

Judgment Excerpts

We are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and find that Sessions Court has committed no error by convicting and sentencing the Appellant.

Procedural History

The appellant was tried in Sessions Case No.1323 of 1998 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, who convicted him under Section 302 IPC on 21st July 2000. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.899 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and dismissed on 26th April 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Mutation Entry Correction in Land Records — Correction of Survey Numbers in Mutation Entries Does Not Require Notice to Parties Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Father's Vacation Access to Children in Custody Dispute with Conditions to Prevent Removal from India. Family Court's Order Allowing Seven-Day Trip Within India Upheld with Additional Safeguards Including Passport Deposit an...