Case Note & Summary
The case arises from the death of Kanopatra, a married woman who succumbed to burn injuries on 29 November 2008. Her husband Sunil (accused no.1), his brother Sandip (accused no.2), their parents Bapurao and Shobhabai (accused nos.3 and 4), and the married sister Savita (accused no.5) were prosecuted for cruelty and murder. The prosecution alleged that after the marriage on 11 May 2006, the accused demanded Rs.1,00,000 to dig a well and subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment. On 9 November 2008, it was alleged that accused nos.1 and 2 poured kerosene on her, accused no.5 caught hold of her, and accused no.4 set her on fire with a burning stick. She was initially taken to sub-district hospital Gangakhed and then to Adhar hospital Nanded, where her two dying declarations were recorded — one by PSI Phule and another by a Special Judicial Magistrate. After her death, the offence was converted to Section 302 IPC. The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed) convicted accused nos.1,2,4,5 under Section 302/34 and all five accused under Section 498A/34, sentencing them to life imprisonment and fine. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declarations were inconsistent and suspicious, the demand for dowry was vague, and several accused were not present. They pointed out that the first dying declaration lacked proper medical endorsement and the station diary was registered within 10 minutes, suggesting manipulation. The defence also highlighted that the trial court itself found reasonable doubt about accused no.3's presence, entitling others to benefit of doubt. The High Court examined the validity of the dying declarations and the evidence of cruelty. The provided excerpt of the judgment does not include the court's final analysis and decision; hence the outcome of the appeal is not available from the text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Credibility and Multiple Declarations - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - The prosecution relied upon two dying declarations, one recorded by a Police Sub-Inspector and the other by a Special Judicial Magistrate. The defence contended that the first declaration lacked a timestamp of conclusion and a doctor's endorsement regarding consciousness, and that the station diary entry was made within 10 minutes, casting doubt on its authenticity. Inconsistencies between the two declarations regarding the father-in-law’s role were also highlighted. The court examined these contentions. Held: Not mentioned in the provided text. (Paras 4, 4(a)-(f))
B) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Cruelty and Demand for Dowry - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A, 304B - Allegations were made that the deceased was harassed for a demand of Rs.1,00,000 for digging a well, leading to physical and mental cruelty. The defence argued that the demand was vague and no specific overt acts were attributed to each accused, especially since several accused were residing elsewhere. The court considered whether the cruelty was proved and whether it was “soon before death”. Held: Not mentioned. (Paras 2, 4)
C) Criminal Law - Abetment and Common Intention - Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The accused were charged with acting in furtherance of common intention to commit murder. The defence argued that several accused were not present at the scene and that the trial court itself expressed doubt about accused no.3's presence. The court examined whether the conviction under Section 302/34 could be sustained for all accused. Held: Not mentioned. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the two dying declarations are voluntary, reliable and consistent; whether there is sufficient evidence to prove cruelty and demand of dowry under Section 498A IPC; whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is justified based on the dying declarations and other evidence; whether the acquittal of one co-accused entitles the remaining accused to benefit of doubt.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided text.
Law Points
- credibility of multiple dying declarations
- proof of cruelty under Section 498A IPC
- dowry demand as harassment
- conviction under Section 302 with Section 34 IPC
- benefit of doubt
- presence of accused at the scene
- inconsistencies in dying declarations
- admissibility of dying declaration under Section 32 of Evidence Act
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 22
Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2014
S.S. Shinde, A.I.S. Cheema
Appellants: Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Respondent/State: Mr. B.L. Dhas
1. Sunil S/o Bapurao Kadam, 2. Sandip Bapurao Kadam, 3. Bapurao Ganpatrao Kadam, 4. Shobhabai W/o Bapurao Kadam, 5. Savita Santukrao Deshmukh
The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Palam, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for offences under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original accused) sought to set aside their conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.
Filing Reason
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, for dowry-related cruelty and murder of Kanopatra, and challenged the correctness of the conviction based on dying declarations and other evidence.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, convicted the appellants under Sections 498A/34 and 302/34 IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for three years and life imprisonment respectively, along with fine and compensation to the father of the deceased.
Issues
Whether the two dying declarations (Exhibit 64 and Exhibit 80) are voluntary, credible, and consistent enough to base a conviction?
Whether there is sufficient evidence of cruelty and demand of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 498A IPC, especially regarding the roles of individual accused?
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is sustainable when the defence disputes the presence of several accused at the scene?
Whether the benefit of doubt extended to accused no.3 (as observed by the trial court at para 61) should also be given to the other accused?
Submissions/Arguments
The dying declarations are inconsistent; the first one lacks a doctor's endorsement of consciousness and completion time, and the station diary entry was made within 10 minutes, casting doubt on its genuineness.
The second dying declaration improves upon the first by adding overt acts of father-in-law, even though he was allegedly away, indicating tutoring by relatives.
The demand of Rs. 1,00,000 is vague with no specific instances of ill-treatment attributed to each accused.
Accused nos. 2, 4 and 5 were residing elsewhere and not present at the time of the incident; the trial court itself recorded reasonable doubt about the presence of accused no.3.
The relatives of the deceased were present at the hospital, and there was every possibility of tutoring, vitiating the dying declarations.
The evidence of prosecution witnesses suffers from improvements, omissions, and contradictions, making it unreliable.
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned in the provided text.
Judgment Excerpts
accused nos. 1 and 2 poured kerosene from two cans on her person. Accused no.5 Savita caught hold her and accused no.4 set her on fire by means of burning stick.
the trial Court in para 61 of the judgment observed that, nothing is before the Court to conclude when he returned to Shirpur from his pilgrimage. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt about the presence of accused no.3 on the day of incident.
in dying declaration recorded by PW11 PSI Phule Exhibit64, Kanopatra (deceased) has categorically stated that, her fatherin law had been to Pandharpur for pilgrimage, whereas in dying declaration at Exhibit – 80 recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate PW13, she improves statement stating some overt act by fatherinlaw.
Procedural History
On 09.11.2008, based on the statement of the deceased, Crime No. 0/2008 was registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Nanded, under Sections 498A, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC. After her death on 29.11.2008, the offence was converted to Section 302. The case was transferred to Police Station Palam where Crime No. 97/2008 was registered. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet filed. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palam, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, framed charges under Sections 302, 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC. After trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced on 10.02.2014. The present appeal was filed before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34, 498A, 307, 323, 504, 506
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 209, 357(1)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 32
