Case Note & Summary
The Judgment arises from two criminal appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No.39 of 2002. The trial court had convicted five accused persons—Kashinath Bhata Dhangar (husband), Bhata Shrawan Dhangar (father-in-law), Sanjay Bhata Dhangar (brother-in-law), Rekhabai alias Chandrabhagabai Chhotu Dhangar (sister-in-law), and Sou. Jijabai Bhata Dhangar (mother-in-law)—for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitting them of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2006 was filed by the accused challenging their conviction and sentence, and Criminal Appeal No.591 of 2006 was preferred by the State assailing the acquittal for murder. The case pertained to the death of Rekhabai, wife of accused no.1, who sustained 86% burn injuries on 21.11.2001 and succumbed the same day. The prosecution alleged that Rekhabai was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused over demands for money to fund accused no.1’s vices of playing cards and consuming liquor. She had moved to her maternal home in the same village two to three months prior to the incident. On the day of the incident, accused no.1 took her back to the matrimonial home on the pretext of searching for a baniyan. It was further alleged that accused no.1 poured kerosene on her and accused no.2 set her ablaze. Neighbours extinguished the fire, and she was taken to the hospital at Dondaicha, then referred to the Civil Hospital, Dhule, where she died. Two dying declarations were recorded: one by A.S.I. Fulpagare, which was treated as the FIR, and another by Ratnakar Vasaikar, Awal Karkoon. The trial court, after examining 13 prosecution witnesses and 2 defence witnesses, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC but found evidence to sustain conviction for abetment of suicide (Section 306) and cruelty (Section 498A). The accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 8 years and 2 years, respectively, with fines. In the High Court, the main legal issues raised were: (i) whether the conviction under Section 306 IPC was sustainable in the absence of a specific charge, and whether Section 306 could be considered a minor offence of Section 302 IPC under Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and (ii) whether the dying declarations were reliable enough to form the basis for a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The counsel for the accused argued that Section 306 IPC was not a minor offence of Section 302, relying on Sangaraboina Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and that the dying declarations were recorded at the instance of the deceased’s father and were not credible. The defence also contended that the deceased’s father had taken a loan of Rs.45,000 from accused no.2 and to avoid repayment, he himself set the deceased on fire and falsely implicated the accused. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the dying declarations were voluntary and truthful, and could be the sole basis for conviction for murder without further corroboration, citing Sakhari alias Shakuntala Mundala Nayak v. State of Maharashtra. The APP submitted that the trial court erred in convicting the accused under Section 306 instead of Section 302 IPC. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, reserved the matter on November 24, 2017, and pronounced the common judgment on December 8, 2017. The excerpt of the judgment provided does not contain the court’s analysis and final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether conviction under Section 306 IPC can be sustained without a specific charge and whether the dying declarations are sufficient to prove murder under Section 302 IPC
Law Points
- Section 306 IPC is not a minor offence of Section 302 IPC under Section 222 CrPC
- dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration if found truthful
