Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of Bapu (Nandu) Prabhu Koli @ Raut under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court, Osmanabad, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 24 January 2012, the accused set his wife Varsha on fire after pouring kerosene on her, causing 88% burn injuries leading to her death on 4 February 2012. The accused and deceased were labourers living in a hutment near a brick kiln. The incident occurred at their residence in Kakramba village, Tuljapur taluka. Varsha was initially taken to Tuljapur civil hospital and then referred to Osmanabad civil hospital. A police constable (PW3) recorded her dying declaration in the early hours of 25 January 2012, after obtaining a fitness certification from the duty doctor (PW4). In the declaration, Varsha stated that her husband harassed and beat her on suspicion about her character, and on the evening of 24 January 2012, as she woke up to attend nature’s call, he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. She also said neighbours extinguished the fire and her brother and mother took her to the hospital. The investigating officer (PW6) conducted a spot panchnama, arrested the accused, sent muddemal articles for chemical analysis, and filed a charge-sheet. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, including a neighbour (PW1) who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW3 and PW4 were the key witnesses. PW3 deposed about the dying declaration procedure, stating he used a printed form, the doctor certified consciousness before and after, and the contents were read over to the patient who affixed her thumb impression. PW4 confirmed the patient was conscious and oriented, and he had endorsed the declaration form accordingly. The trial court convicted the accused solely relying on the dying declaration. In appeal, the defence questioned the credibility of the dying declaration, citing the lack of an MLC entry, the absence of a written request to the doctor, and the inconsistency created by the hostile neighbour. The prosecution argued the dying declaration was voluntarily given, duly certified, and sufficient for conviction. The High Court examined the evidence of PW3 and PW4 in detail, noting that the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of a doctor and contained specific details about the incident and motive. It observed that the mere fact of a hostile witness does not undermine the dying declaration and that the procedure followed was proper. However, the available text of the judgment ends midsentence, and the final outcome of the appeal is not stated in the excerpt. Therefore, the decision remains unknown.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Dying declaration recorded by police constable (PW3) in presence of doctor (PW4); doctor certified deceased conscious before and after recording; declaration contained clear narration of husband pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze; hostile neighbour (PW1) did not affect credibility; court examined the procedure and found no infirmity. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration (Exhibit 23) was voluntary and truthful, and sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC, especially when the neighbour (PW1) turned hostile.
Law Points
- Dying declaration recorded by police constable is admissible if certified by doctor as conscious
- conviction can be based solely on dying declaration
- hostile witness does not render dying declaration unreliable
