Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of four family members for the murder and harassment of a young woman, Manisha, who died from burn injuries. The case stemmed from a marriage where the deceased allegedly faced cruelty and demands to leave the house due to an illicit relationship between her husband and his sister-in-law. On 20 June 2011, the deceased was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar with 68% burns. A Special Judicial Magistrate recorded her dying declaration, wherein she stated that her sister-in-law, brother-in-law, and mother-in-law bolted the door, poured four litres of kerosene on her, and the mother-in-law set her on fire. She managed to escape and was doused by a neighbour. The husband was not present during the incident. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the magistrate, doctors, the father of the deceased, a neighbour, and the investigating officer. The defence argued that the dying declaration was unreliable, containing omissions and contradictions, and that the motive was fabricated. They contended that the husband took the deceased to the hospital, indicating innocence, and that the defence witness was ignored. The court’s analysis and decision were not included in the extracted text, leaving the appeal outcome unknown. The main legal issues concerned the reliability of the dying declaration, the sufficiency of evidence to prove cruelty and murder, and the appreciation of motive and witness testimony.
Headnote
Not provided in the extracted portion of the judgment
Issue of Consideration
Not explicitly framed in the extracted text
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 23
Criminal Appeal No. 537 of 2012
S.S. Shinde, A.I.S. Cheema
Mr. Satyajit S. Bora for Appellants, Mr. K.S. Patil for Respondent
Bapu s/o. Haribhau Waman, Sou. Rani w/o. Bapu Waman, Sou. Asrabai w/o. Haribhau Waman, Santosh s/o. Haribhau Waman
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 302, 498-A, 341, 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court
Filing Reason
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed in Sessions Case No. 146/2011 for murder and cruelty, and they challenged the conviction on grounds of erroneous appreciation of evidence and unreliability of the dying declaration
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed convicted the appellants on 21 July 2012, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other terms for offences under Sections 302, 498-A, 341, 452 read with 34 IPC
Issues
Whether the dying declaration recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate was voluntary, truthful, and reliable enough to form the sole basis for conviction
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences of cruelty (Section 498-A), murder (Section 302), wrongful restraint (Section 341), and house-trespass (Section 452) with common intention
Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the ocular evidence, medical evidence, and the defence version in light of omissions and contradictions
Submissions/Arguments
The motive of an illicit relationship between the husband and sister-in-law was an afterthought and false
The husband (appellant no.1) himself took the deceased to the hospital, which is a mitigating circumstance indicating innocence
The spot panchanama (Exhibit 18) was not duly proved and did not support the prosecution case
The evidence of panch witness PW-1 (Vishnu Shekade) and neighbour PW-2 (Shankar Waman) was full of omissions and contradictions, rendering it unreliable
The dying declaration recorded by PW-3 (SJM) was not trustworthy and contained material omissions and contradictions
No independent witness was examined to prove the alleged ill-treatment and the incident
The medical evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 did not assist the prosecution, and the endorsement on the dying declaration was falsely made, diminishing its sanctity
The written statements of the appellants (Exhibit 48) and the defence witness (DW-1, Usha) were not properly considered by the trial court
Judgment Excerpts
the trio had bolted the door of the house from inside and also shut the windows. Thereafter, her sister-in-law and brother-in-law poured entire four liters of kerosene on her person and her mother-in-law ignited match stick and set on fire one end of her sari
Her husband used to tell her, ‘she should not live with him, he wants to marry with the sister of Rani, he likes her and she should leave the house’
the prosecution did not examine any independent witness to prove the fact of ill-treatment, and the alleged incident
the written statements of the Appellants in their defence vide Exhibit-48 have not been considered by the trial Court in its proper perspective
Procedural History
On 20.06.2011, crime no. 61/2011 was registered under Sections 498-A, 307 r/w 34 IPC based on the dying declaration. Investigation was conducted by API Mahindra Ahere. The accused nos. 1 to 3 were arrested on 21.06.2011, and accused no.4 on 04.07.2011. The deceased died on 27.06.2011, and Section 302 IPC was added on 29.06.2011. Charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 19.09.2011. Charges were framed on 18.11.2011. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed convicted the appellants on 21.07.2012. The present appeal was filed challenging that conviction.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 498-A, 341, 452, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
