Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Kamalabai Laxman Jadhav (Accused No.1), Laxman Bhimasha Jadhav (Accused No.2), and Maryappa Laxman Jadhav (Accused No.3), were convicted by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.204 of 2002 for the murder of Hanmant Gaikwad. The prosecution case was that the deceased had lent Rs.40,000 to Accused No.1, which was not returned despite repeated demands. On 26th August 2002, the deceased went to the accused's house at 8.15 p.m. to demand repayment. The accused refused, abused him, and dragged him out of the house. Accused No.2 poured kerosene on him, and Accused No.1 set him on fire. The victim was taken to the hospital by his son-in-law, where his dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate. The victim succumbed to burns. The trial court convicted all three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the dying declaration was unreliable due to inconsistencies. The High Court, after reappreciating the evidence, held that the dying declaration was truthful and voluntary, recorded by a competent Magistrate after certification of fitness by a doctor. Minor inconsistencies did not affect its credibility. The court found that the motive of non-repayment of loan was established, and the medical evidence corroborated the dying declaration. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate is admissible and can be sole basis for conviction if found truthful and voluntary - Minor inconsistencies do not discredit the declaration - Held that the dying declaration was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence and motive (Paras 5-10). B) Criminal Law - Motive - Loan Dispute - Non-repayment of loan of Rs.40,000/- constituted motive for murder - Held that motive was established by prosecution (Para 3). C) Criminal Law - Section 34 IPC - Common Intention - Acts of accused in pouring kerosene and setting victim on fire showed common intention to kill - Held that all accused shared common intention (Paras 3, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration is reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- reliability of dying declaration
- corroboration of dying declaration
- motive
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 498A IPC
