Raviraj Saybanna Guntnol vs The State Of Maharashtra
2004 Latest Caselaw 137 Bom

JUDGMENT

P.V. Kakade, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.8.1999 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, wherein the accused was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year. He, however, was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of the I.P.C.

2. We have heard Shri Khamkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Kantharia, learned A.P.P. for the State, at length.

The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus -

Deceased Shantabai and her husband were residing at village Modnimb, Tal. Madha, Dist. Solapur. The accused was involved in construction work called as centring at village Modnimb. Shantabai was working under accused and had developed illicit relations with him for about 9 years prior to the incident. The accused started suspecting that she also had illicit relations with some other person and this fact gave rise to the quarrels between them. On the fateful day i.e. on 4.3.1998, accused went to the house of Shantabai at noon time and started quarrel on the ground that she was having illicit relations with others. He abused and threatened her. At about 7.00 p.m. when Shantabai was in her house, the accused went there and started quarrel with her and in the course of the quarrel he took can of kerosene and poured the kerosene upon her person and set her on fire. Shantabai's husband was working as a labourer and had gone outside, who came on the scene when he saw smoke from his house, He rushed to the scene and saw that his wife was put on fire. On seeing the husband of Shantabai, the accused ran away. Husband of Shantabai poured water and doused the flame. PW-3 also saw the accused running from the spot when Shantabai was burning at 7.00 p.m. on that day. Shantabai had sustained 96% burns. She was taken to the hospital where her first dying declaration was recorded by the police head constable PW-4 Kadam who was on duty. He recorded the dying declaration under the supervision of the medical officer who was present at that time. The said dying declaration was also treated as the F.I.R. on which basis the offence came to be registered against the accused in due course. In the meantime, the police had sent message to the Spl. Executive Magistrate (S.E.M. in short) who also came on the scene and PW-5 Mangalpalli, S.E.M. Solapur recorded the dying declaration of Shantabai under the supervision of the. medical officer. Evidently, Shantabai succumbed to her injuries. Her body was sent for post-mortem examination after inquest panchnama. The investigating officer also visited the place of incident and prepared the panchnama and also seizes incriminating articles from the spot which were sent to the C.A. whose report was received in due course which is part of the record. Several witnesses were examined in the course of the investigation and on completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was sent to the Court of law. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of law.

3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused person for murder of Shantabai alongwith some other charges. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Evidence of the accuses is that of total denial. Prosecution led its evidence at length in which course several oral as well as written dying declarations formulated the foundation of the prosecution evidence. Relying on the available evidence, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused for murder of Shantabai and, therefore, convicted and consequently sentenced the accused in the aforesaid manner.

Hence the appeal.

4. At the outset, it may be noted that it is a case based upon several dying declarations including the oral dying declaration given by Shantabai to her husband. PW-2 Yetal - husband of Shantabai has stated that he was working as a labourer outside when he saw that there was some fire at the courtyard of my house and heard shrieks of his wife. He saw accused was standing there and seeing him, the accused ran away. He reached his house and poured water on the person of Shantabai and extinguished the fire. Shantabai informed his that it was the accused Raviraj who had quarrel with her stating that she had illicit relations with many people and, therefore, poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. Therefore, husband Yetal took Shantabai to hospital at Modnimb but no doctor was available there and, therefore, she was taken to Civil Hospital, Solapur, This evidence of husband Yetal is important in two aspects, firstly, it is a oral dying declaration given by Shantabai immediately after occurrence of the incident and secondly, it is in corroboration with the evidence of written dying declaration. The evidence of Yetal is again corroborated by PW-3 Uttam Nalawade, neighbour of Shantabai who stated that prior to the incident, quarrel was going on between the accused and deceased Shantabai and at 7.00 p.m. he saw Shantabai was burning. He saw accused running from the said spot. At that time, Shantabai's husband came and extinguished the fire. Later on other persons came on the scene. There is absolutely no reason why PW-3 should be disbelieved because evidently he is neighbour and he has seen the accused running away from the spot. Therefore, in our view, testimony of Uttam Nalawade PW-3 also corroborates the prosecution story that it was the accused who was present with Shantabai when the incident occurred.

5. PW-4 Head Constable Kadam has stated that he received information from Civil Hospital to the effect that burn case was admitted and, therefore, he went to the hospital and contacted Dr. Ghorpade on duty. Dr. Ghorpade informed him that he should record dying declaration of Shantabai. Shantabai was admitted in casualty ward. Dr. Ghorpade certified that Shantabai was in a position to give her statement and was fit for the same after examining her. Thereafter Dr. Ghorpade made an endorsement on the paper to that effect and statement was recorded of Shahtabai in which course she clearly gave brief back ground of the quarrel between herself and accused and stated that it was himself who poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. She has also stated that thereafter her husband came and poured water upon her and extinguished the fire and took her to hospital. It is pertinent to note that Dr. Ghorpade has made his endorsement in the beginning as well as at the end of the said statement which was eventually treated as F.I.R. in order to register an offence against the accused. The statement was started at 2.20 a.m. and completed at 2.40 a.m. On that day, on completion of recording of statement, the Head Constable obtained thumb mark of Shantabai and attested the same. Dr. Ghorpade also made his endorsement. On completion of recording of the statement, it was sent to the police station where it was treated as F.I.R.

Thereafter the Spl. Executive Magistrate was summoned who also recorded the second dying declaration of Shantabai. According to PW-5 Somraj S. Mangalpalli, S. E. M., on receipt of the letter from the police he went to the hospital and contacted Dr. Shah who was on duty. Dr. Shah examined Shantabai and informed him that she was in fit condition to give statement and accordingly made endorsement on dying declaration. He proceeded to record the dying declaration Exh.33 as per statement made by her and on completion thereof, he obtained her thumb mark and attested it accordingly. In the said dying declaration also she has stated categorically that it was the accused who had poured the kerosene upon her and set her on fire. Both dying declarations, one recorded by the police and the other recorded by the S. E. M. are corroborating each other. The testimony of police head constable and medical officer also corroborates the fact that Shantabai did give statement in the manner in which it was present on record today. Dr. Shah's evidence completes the evidential circle in order to establish that the patient i.e. Shantabai was in fit condition and was in a position to give statement when it was so recorded. Further, the evidence of PW-7 Ukarande shows that he was casualty medical officer at Civil Hospital at Solapur and at about 1.35 a.m. husband of the deceased brought Shantabai to the casualty ward where she was admitted and at the time of admission Shantabai, history of homicidal burn came to be recorded at the hands of Dr. Ukarande. According to him, Shantabai stated that she was set ablaze by the accused by pouring kerosene upon her by taking his name accordingly. Dr. Ukarande made endorsement on the said history vide case paper Exh.36, which is duly proved by the said medical officer.

6. This evidential position eliminates any doubt whatsoever about the author of the crime, Shri Khamkar, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to submit on the basis of Apex Court ruling between Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of A.P., to the effect that the certificate of the doctor should not only give the fact that patient was conscious but it should also be certified specifically that the patient was in fit state of mind at the time of giving dying declaration. In this regard, we must note that there cannot be any quarrel about the principle laid down. The evidence before us, especially that of Dr. Shah, Dr. Ukarande supported by the Spl. Executive Magistrate Mangalpalli, leaves no doubt whatsoever that Shantabai, at the relevant time, was in conscious state of mind and was in fit mental condition to give statement. The very consistency between two dying declarations corroborated by the oral dying declaration proved through her husband Yetal and case paper entry of Solapur Civil Hospital would by itself show that Shantabai was in fit state of mind to know what she was talking to express herself in cogent and proper manner. Therefore, we have no doubt whatsoever that the evidence of dying declarations on record is reliable and sufficient to inspire confidence. This evidence is again corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 Nalawade when he stated that immediately after the incident he saw accused person running away from Shantabai's house and arrival of husband of Shantabai on the scene after Shantabai was set on fire.

Thus, we hold that the prosecution evidence is more than sufficient to bring home the guilt and attribute the overt act to the accused and none else.

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.