1 apeal122.12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.122 OF 2012
1. Pravin s/o. Manohar Dhabekar,
Aged about 30 yrs.,
2. Sachin @ Balya Manohar Raut,
Aged about 27 yrs.,
3. Manohar @ Manya Mahadeo Raut,
Aged about 50 yrs.,
4. Smt. Savitribai w/o. Manohar Raut,
Aged about 40 yrs.,
5. Smt. Vatsalabai Manohar Dhabekar,
Aged about 60 yrs.,
All accused are r/o. Jambudipnagar,
Nagpur (All accused in jail) ........ APPELLANTS
// VERSUS //
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Hudkeshwar, Nagpur ........ RESPONDENT
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 :::
2 apeal122.12.odt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr.R.H.Rawlani, Adv. with Mr.R.M.Daga, Adv.
for the Appellants.
Mr.M.K.Pathan, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Coram: P.V.HARDAS &
A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.
Date : 20.10.2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P.Bhangale, J) :
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.19.3.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No.170 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur whereby the appellants were convicted of the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.200/- each, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.100/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. They were further convicted for the offence punishable ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 3 apeal122.12.odt under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under :
On or about 2nd December, 2010, at about 5.00 a.m., it is alleged that Nandkishor @ Nandu Chandrakant Dahare received burn injuries as a result of pouring of kerosene on his body. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellants/accused and the appellants caused burn injuries to the deceased by pouring kerosene on his body and lighting a match stick.
The offence was reported at Police Station, Hudkeshwar, under Section 307 r/w. Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code vide Exh.47, on the basis of which the investigation started. It is the case of prosecution that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the deceased as to the cause of death through Executive Magistrate and on the basis of that, upon completion of investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 4 apeal122.12.odt First Class (Corporation Court No.1), Nagpur and the case was committed for trial before the Court of Sessions at Nagpur. The charge was framed as per Exh.10, to which the appellants/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses in support of the prosecution case. The accused denied their penal liability and alleged that they were falsely implicated and in fact, the deceased had committed suicide. One defence witness Shakuntala Chandrakant Dahare (mother of the deceased) was examined in support of the defence.
3. We have heard the submissions at the bar and also perused the evidence on record and the judicial precedents pointed out to us during the course of submissions.
4. The first question which we are required to answer is whether deceased Nandkishor met with homicidal death.
Prosecution has examined Dr.Ashutosh Yashwantrao Deshmukh (PW-
6) who performed post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Nandu @ Nandkishor on 6.1.2011 between 5.00 p.m. to 6.05 p.m.. According to him, total burns were 40 % and the cause of death was mentioned as septicemia due to burn injuries. Dr. Ashutosh ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 5 apeal122.12.odt admitted that the burns if are more than 50 % are generally fatal and in the present case, prompt and aggressive treatment was required.
He also found that the dead body was having bed soars on its back aged about 8 to 10 days and he explained meaning of word the Septicemia as 'an infection in blood due to bacteria'. According to the evidence of Dr.Ashutosh, the deceased was receiving medical treatment in Government Medical College, Nagpur from 2.12.2010;
but, 10 to 15 days prior to his death, he had left hospital without intimation. Police were asked to produce the treatment papers, but they did not do so. According to Dr.Ashutosh, in case the patient does not take medical treatment for burn injuries for 10 to 15 days, it would be fatal. Evidence of Dr.Ashutosh indicating that deceased Nandu died as a result of Septicemia due to burn injuries and his admission in the cross-examination also indicating that the deceased had left the hospital 10 to 15 days prior to his death without intimation would show that the deceased had neglected to take medical treatment for his burn injuries. Bearing in mind this medical evidence, we also find that it is a case of multiple dying declarations which are at variance with each other as to their contents.
5. Punjaji Pandurang Nemade (PW-3), P.S.I., Police Station, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 6 apeal122.12.odt Hudkeshwar, Nagpur had requisitioned the services of Executive Magistrate, Nagpur City for recording the statement of injured Nandu.
Evidence of Punjaji reveals that he had sent a letter as per Exh.39 to the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur City which mentions that, on 2nd December, 2010, at about 5.00 a.m., Nandu @ Nandkishor, aged about 35 years, r/o. Jambudeep Nagar hutments has got burnt and is admitted in the Medical College, Ward no.7 and therefore, his dying declaration be recorded. Initial information from PSI Punjaji Nemade (Exh.37) indicates that the C.M.O., Medical College, Nagpur City was informed that Nandu @ Nandkishor Chandrakant Dahare has committed suicide and was admitted in the Medical College for medical treatment while taking medical opinion as to his fitness to give statement. While Vasant Rathod (PW-4), ASI from Police Station, Hudkeshwar claimed that he had obtained endorsement from Medical Officer and noted report of the injured, in which the injured claimed that, while he was standing near compound of his house, at that time, Manohar Raut, his wife, his son Balya, his brother-in-law and his mother poured kerosene on his person from a Can and set him ablaze by lighting match stick and the neighbours took him for medical treatment (Exh.47).
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 :::7 apeal122.12.odt
6. During the course of cross-examination, Vasant Rathod admitted that initial opinion given to the police was pertaining to self-
ablazing of Nandu Dahare. It is also admitted that various types of crimes were registered against the deceased in Police Station, Sakkardara and Hudkeshwar such as robbery, assault and burning, although Vasant (PW-4) denied the suggestion that Nandu set himself ablaze by pouring kerosene on his person from the stove of his house and then ran away out of house and came on the road. The suspicion regarding cause of his death is already on record. It is pertinent to note that, in the report (Exh.47), Nandu claimed that, on 2nd December, 2010, at about 5 a.m., he was standing near compound of his house and, at that time, Praveen Dhabekar came to him and uttered words 'tu bahut badmashi karato', and then poured kerosene on his head and lighted match stick and at that time, the persons around him extinguished him. Report (Exh.47) also alleges that, at the relevant time, Sachin Raut, Manohar Raut and wife of Manohar Raut namely Savitribai as also mother-in-law of Manohar Raut were present.
7. Prosecution has examined Dattatraya Ganpatrao Pohnekar (PW-8), who was Naib-Tahsildar of Nagpur City at the relevant time ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 8 apeal122.12.odt and who recorded dying declaration as per Ex.62. Exh.62 named Savitribai Raut, Pravin Dhabekar, Manohar Raut, Sachin Raut and Smt. Dhabekar, mother of Savitribai as the persons who poured kerosene on the person of Nandu @ Nandkishor Dahare and set him on fire by lighting the match stick citing prior enmity with Savitribai as the reason. Thus, we have conflicting evidence on record which is suspicious in nature regarding exact cause of death of Nandu @ Nandkishor Dahare. On the basis of such inconsistent evidence in the dying declarations recorded read with the medical evidence and the initial investigation, we cannot reach to the safe conclusion to the effect that the deceased met with homicidal death. It is because, according to the medical evidence, the deceased died due to Septicemia resulted from the burn injuries. The doctor also indicated that the deceased had left the hospital without intimation prior to 10 to 15 days of his death, which indicated that the deceased was negligent and unwilling to receive proper medical treatment and such conduct was likely to cause his death. While, in front of the Investigating Officer, the deceased imputed criminal liability to Pravin Dhabekar. He chose to impute criminal liability to multiple number of accused when the Naib-Tahsildar came and recorded his dying declaration. On the basis of such unreliable and inconsistent, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 9 apeal122.12.odt conflicting evidence, we have to record a finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Nandu @ Nandkishor Dahare met with homicidal death.
Regarding criminal liability imputed to the appellants before us, we have evidence of dying declarations which are at variance with each other spelling out different versions in respect of alleged incident of murder caused by the appellants.
8. Mother of the deceased was examined in support of defence that the accused were falsely implicated. According to Shakuntala Dahare (DW-1), deceased Nandu had come from outside on 2nd December, 2010 and he had called her to awaken her and took stove from her room. She felt that he must be carrying away the stove to prepare tea. After short time, she heard shouts "melo re bappa" ("O Father, I am dying"). She saw that he was lying in the Courtyard with burn injuries. According to Shakuntala, one Dharamtok, a neighbour, had come, who had put out the burns by picking up quilt from her bed and covering the person of Nandu.
Shakuntala also deposed that, at the time of incident, Nandu had consumed liquor and he himself had poured kerosene on his person from the stove and set himself on fire. This evidence of Shakuntala ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 10 apeal122.12.odt cannot be brushed aside as false and improbable. Shakuntala is not a stranger, but mother of the deceased and she would never spare any real culprit, if at all her son was murdered according to the prosecution. Wife of deceased Nandu namely Kunda was also examined as PW-1. According to her, her husband wanted to take tea and went to the room of her mother-in-law. After sometime, she heard shouts and screaming of her husband and saw that he was burnt. Thereafter, his friend came and extinguished the fire and took her husband to the hospital. This evidence appears consistent with defence version of the incident. It is also pertinent to note that, while receiving medical treatment in the hospital for about 15 days, her husband/deceased had taken discharge and returned home. Kunda (PW-1) was disowned by the prosecution and was cross-examined.
But, she denied the suggestions from the prosecution. Her evidence also indicated that her husband was in the habit of consuming liquor and he had consumed liquor on the date of the incident. The evidence of Punjaji Nemade (PW-3) shows that he gave requisition (Exh.37) to C.M.O. of Medical College, Nagpur City for recording statement of deceased Nandu @ Nandkishor Dahare, who was burnt and therefore, brought to Medical College for medical treatment. In our opinion, this earliest version of the incident ought to have alerted the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 11 apeal122.12.odt learned trial Judge to exercise abundant caution while appreciating evidence in the present case. Criminal Court cannot deprive life long liberty of an accused on the basis of bald and shaky version of the prosecution. While, in front of Vasant (PW-4), deceased Nandu had claimed that, Manohar Raut, his wife, his son Balya, his brother-in-
law and his mother poured kerosene on his person and set him ablaze by lighting match stick. This statement before police is totally inconsistent with the earlier version of evidence as per Exh.37 and the requisition letter given to the Medical Officer (Exh.46). In the report (Exh.47), medical liability was only attributed to Pravin Dhabekar, while it was stated that other accused named Sachin Raut, Manohar and Savitribai and Dhabekar (mother of Savitribai) were only present at the time of incident when the Executive Magistrate (Naib-
Tahsildar) recorded dying declaration as per Exh.62. Deceased Nandu chose to attribute overt acts to all the appellants namely Savitribai, Pravin, Manohar Raut, Sachin Raut and Smt. Dhabekar. This version imparting penal liability to all the appellants is absolutely unreliable because had the appellants intended to commit murder of Nandkishor by pouring kerosene over his body and setting him on fire, the result would not have been only 40 % burn injuries when multiple numbers of alleged offenders acted in concert furtherance of their common ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 12 apeal122.12.odt intention. It is also pertinent to note that while Nandkishor had received burn injuries on 2.12.2010, he, in fact, died on 6.1.2011.
Evidence of his wife as also Dr. Ashutosh that Nandkishor had sought discharge from hospital and returned home neglecting medical treatment for the burn injuries received by him would indicate that that negligence in receiving medical treatment may also have contributed death of Nandkishor.
9. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that when dying declarations are at variance with each other and are suspicious and when the evidence also indicates the possibility that the deceased might have committed suicide by burning himself coupled with the fact that he neglected his own medical treatment in the hospital, the said aspect ought to have been considered by the learned trial Judge so as to give benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants. The learned Advocate for the appellants invited our attention to the ruling in State of Punjab .vs. Parveen Kumar reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6897. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of this ruling observed thus :
" While appreciating the credibility of the evidence ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 13 apeal122.12.odt produced before the Court, the Court must view evidence as a whole and come to a conclusion as to its genuineness and truthfulness. The mere fact that two different versions are given but one name is common in both of them cannot be a ground for convicting the named person. The court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful. If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declaration. It may be that if there was any other reliable evidence on record, this Court could have considered such corroborative evidence to test the truthfulness of the dying declarations. The two dying declarations, however, in the instant case stand by themselves and there is no other reliable evidence on record by reference to which their truthfulness can be tested. It is well settled that one piece of unreliable evidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliable evidence. The High Court while considering the evidence on record has rightly applied the principles laid down by this Court in Thurukanni Pompiah and another vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 939 and Khusal Rao vs. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR
552. "
10. Our attention is then invited to the ruling in State of A.P.
vs. P. Khaja Hussain, reported in I (2009) DMC 775 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered variance between two dying declarations, in which the scenario was described in substantially different manner and concluded that, in such a case conviction, is not sustainable. Our attention is then invited to the ruling in Gulab Somaji Neware and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 14 apeal122.12.odt 220 of 2006 decided by this Court on 24.1.2012 (one of us was a party to that judgment). In the said case, this Court has made a reference to the ruling in Parveen Kumar's case (supra) and noted the legal position regarding variance between the multiple dying declarations and has set aside the conviction and sentence so as to acquit the appellants in that case.
11. The legal position regarding acceptability of evidence in the nature of dying declaration is well settled. As such, there is no bar to base conviction solely on the basis of dying declaration provided that it is voluntary, true and wholly reliable. Suspicion arising from different versions in the dying declaration can lead to benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. In a case where plurality of dying declarations is in evidence, prosecution is required to establish voluntariness, reliability of all dying declarations recorded while deponent is in fit mental condition to give statement. When we find discrepancies in various dying declarations on record, it is unsafe to convict the accused in such a case. The nature of inconsistencies in such dying declarations at variance with each other is certainly a material which cannot be ignored. In the present case, we find that initial information to the police was regarding alleged suicide by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 15 apeal122.12.odt Nandu @ Nandkishor by burning himself. The facts also indicate long gap between the date of incident and the date of death in the present case. Mother as well as widow of the deceased attributed cause of death virtually to the deceased that he had consumed liquor on the day of incident and he had carried stove from the room of his mother.
Under these circumstances, the possibility that Nandkishor might have set himself on fire and attempted suicide cannot be overruled. The alleged dying declaration was in grave doubt. It is quite possible that a person in drunken condition may put kerosene oil upon himself and ignite a match stick and cause burn injuries to himself. The deceased, thereafter, imputing overt act to one or more of the appellants in his multiple dying declarations, which are inconsistent and at variance with each other, cannot be accepted as reliable as may be afterthought by a person having past criminal cases against him,.
Conviction, in our opinion, could not have been based upon such evidence. The trial Court was in error to act upon such type of multiple dying declarations which were at variance with each other as also contrary to earliest version of the incident. There was no corroboration on record to any of the dying declarations recorded in this case. None of these dying declarations could have been accepted as true and voluntary when they were suspicious in their nature. The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 ::: 16 apeal122.12.odt conviction recorded, therefore, by the trial Court suffers from serious infirmity and is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We, therefore, conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are entitled for the order of acquittal and hence, we pass the following order.
The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
The conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged and convicted.
Fine, if paid by the appellants, be refunded to them.
Since the appellants are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
JUDGE JUDGE
jaiswal
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:18:50 :::