Bombay High Court
Sau.Mankaur Kisansing Bawari And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 October, 2021
Bench: S.S. Jadhav, P. K. Chavan
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.257 OF 1998
1. Sau. Premkaur Premsing Bawani
Age :45 years, Occ.: Labourer.
2. Rupkaur Tejmalsing Bhend
Age : 22 years, Occ.: Household
Both residing at Ashoknagar,
Maniknagar, Yerwada, ... Appellants (Orig.
Pune - 6. Accused Nos.2 and 4)
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.634 OF 1997
1. Sau. Mankaur @ Roshankaur
Kisanging Bawari, Age - 66 years,
Occ. Household.
2. Bharatsing Kisansing Bawari,
Age - 25 years, Occ.: Business,
3. Papadsing Kisansing Bawari,
Age - 35 years, Occ.: Business; ... Appellants (Orig.
All R/at Ashoknagar, Maniknagar, Accused Nos.3, 6 and
Yerwada, Pune - 6. 7)
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
-------------------
Ms. Devyani Kulkarni, Appointed Advocate for the Appellants in
Apeal/257/1998.
Mr. Rahul Kate i/b. Ms. Tejasweeta V. Bhosale, Advocate for the
Appellants in Apeal/634/1997.
Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
---------------------
pmw 1 of 17
::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2021 05:51:00 :::
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 11th OCTOBER 2021
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 29th OCTOBER 2021
JUDGMENT : (Per Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.)
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.340 of 1996
by which the appellants - Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 herein are
convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to pay fine each of them to
undergo further R.I. for 6 months for offence punishable under section
302 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 are convicted for the
offence punishable under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default
of payment of fine
each of them sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months for offence
punishable u/s. 498A r/w 34 IPC. Hence, these Appeals.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these
Appeals are as follows :-
pmw 2 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
(i) Tirathkaur Bhond (P.W.4) is the grandmother of the
deceased Azadkaur. Azadkaur was married to Takdirsing (who
happened to be a Juvenile-in-conflict with law at the time of incident).
Hence, his case is separated. On 22 nd June 1996, P.W4 lodged a report
at the Police Station alleging therein that at the time of marriage of
Azadkaur her son had paid Rs.10,000/- towards dowry. He had spent a
sum of Rs.20,000/-. That, her grand-daughter was treated properly for
few days. Thereafter, all the family members were insisting upon her to
fetch money to enable her husband Takdirsing to start a new business.
The deceased had complained to her grandmother about the same. Her
in-laws were insisting upon P.W.4 to give an amount of Rs.20,000/- as a
capital for new business. On 20th June 1996, Azadkaur had been to the
house of P.W.4 and had complained that she is subjected to starvation
and harassment since she is unable to fetch Rs.20,000/-. On 22 nd June
1996, P.W.4 had visited the house of the deceased. At that time, she
saw her in-laws quarreling with Azadkaur. P.W.4 intervened, pacified
the in-laws of Azadkaur and returned to her home. At about 5.00 pm,
she visited the house of Azadkaur to ensure the safety of Azadkaur but
she saw that she was being assaulted. P.W.4 attempted to give an
understanding to the in-laws. The same continued upto 8.00 pm. The
pmw 3 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
in-laws caught hold of Azadkaur, Takdirsing doused her with kerosene
and set her ablaze. P.W.4 saw the incident of Azadkaur being set ablaze
and rushed to her house to inform her son Rupsing i.e. father of
Azadkaur. Then her family members rushed to the house and they saw
Azadkaur in flames and took her to the hospital. On the basis of her
report, Crime No.158/1996 was registered at Parnakuti Police Chowky
for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
(ii) On 22nd June 1996, at about 11.30 pm, the statement of
the injured Azadkaur was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate. She
disclosed to the Magistrate that she was set ablaze by her husband. She
succumbed to the burn injuries on 24 th June 1996 and hence, section
302 of IPC was added.
(iii) At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6
witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution
mainly rests on the evidence of P.W.1 - Dr. Shivdas Chavan who
examined the injured in Sasoon Hospital on 22nd June 1996 and had
given treatment to her, P.W.2 - Ulhas Koranne, Special Judicial
Magistrate who recorded dying declaration (Exh.44) of the victim,
P.W.3 - Dr. Shrikant Chandekar who performed autopsy on the dead
body of Azadkaur, P.W.4 - complainant, P.W.5 - Latakaur, mother of the
pmw 4 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
deceased.
3. The deposition of P.W.4 - Tirathkaur is in consonance with
the allegations made by her in the FIR. According to her, on 22 nd June
1996, her grand-daughter had complained to her about the ill-
treatment meted to her for not fulfilling the demand of Rs.20,000/-.
P.W.4 - had been to the house of the accused and persuaded them not
to give ill-treatment to her grand-daughter. Azadkaur was beaten by
her in-laws in the presence of P.W.4. P.W.4 was in the house of the
accused from 5.00 pm to 8.00 pm. Accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 had
caught hold of Azadkaur and had coerced the accused No.1 - Rupsing
to set her ablaze. The said incident had taken place in the presence of
P.W.4. When she tried to go towards Azadkaur she was pushed away by
the accused and therefore, she returned to her house to inform her
family members about the same. By the time she returned with her
family members, the accused had fled from their house and Azadkaur
was lying in a burnt condition. She was admitted in Sasoon Hospital
and therefore, she had lodged the report which is at Exh.30. It is
elicited in the cross-examination that the house of the accused
Tirathsing is in slum area which is situated between Ashok Nagar and
Maniknagar. It is denied that the mother of accused nos.6 and 7 is her
pmw 5 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
younger sister. In another breath, P.W.4 has stated as follows :-
"I cannot state how many years younger than me is Roshan Kaur."
4. It is admitted that Roshankaur happens to be the mother of
accused Nos.6 and 7. It is admitted by P.W.4 that she and her husband
are in the business of sale and purchase of pigs and that they have
huge business. It is also admitted that although they were fully aware
that Azad Kaur is being harassed and being assaulted she and her son
had not brought Azadkaur. It is also admitted by P.W.4 that she was
standing in front of the door when Azad Kaur was set ablaze and at
that time, no one had come forward to extinguish the flames. That,
Azad Kaur had not attempted to rescue herself after kerosene was
poured on her. That, P.W.4 also had not made any attempts to interfere.
There was no fire inside the house. She has feigned ignorance as to
whether there was a smoke inside the house and that the roof had
blackened. It appears that the house of P.W.4 was close to the house of
the accused since according to her, she took hardly five minutes to
reach her house and informed her husband about the incident and
thereafter, they returned in five minutes. She has further stated that
Azadkaur was lying inside the house on the ground. She was in a fully
burnt condition. It is further admitted that she along with her four sons
pmw 6 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
are being prosecuted in a case in which it is alleged that they had
kidnapped Papadsing. She has specifically denied that there was any
stove or wooden plank at the scene of offence and that there was a
washing place inside the house. She has denied that she has shown the
open space 15 ft. away from the house of Azad Kaur to the Police.
There are inherent omissions in the evidence of P.W.4. She has
specifically denied that accused no.3 happens to be her sister. She was
confronted with the family photograph in which she is seen with her
three sisters, brother and his wife. But she has identified accused no.3
in the photograph. According to her, she was in the house of the
accused and Azad Kaur from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm and thereafter, had
revisited at 5.00 pm. That, when Azadkaur was caught hold by the
accused, she had learnt of their intention to set her ablaze.
5. Upon perusal of the scene of offence panchanama which
was recorded on 23rd June 1996, it appears that the scene of offence
was shown by P.W.4. The scene of offence is in Ashok Nagar slum area.
It appears to be residential house of Azadkaur. There is a washing
place in the said house. There were burnt pieces of Saree in the house.
That, Azad Kaur had rushed out of the house in order to rescue herself.
She went on the road after she was set ablaze and then the people had
pmw 7 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
extinguished the flames by pouring water. The place where the injured
had fallen is about 50 ft. from her house. On the way, there were burnt
pieces of red cloth. The house is in a densely populated area and is
surrounded by huts.
6. The prosecution has also placed reliance upon the dying
declaration of the deceased Azad Kaur which was recorded by P.W.2
Ulhas Koranne. According to P.W.2, upon receipt of requisition, he had
been to the Sasoon Hospital for recording the statement of the injured.
He inquired with the patient about her health. Thereafter, he had
recorded the statement during the period 11.20 pm to 11.30 pm. Since
her thumbs and fingers of both the hands were burnt he had taken the
toe impression of the right leg and had endorsed upon the statement as
taken in his presence. The statement was recorded in presence of the
medical officer. It is elicited in the cross-examination that the injured
was kept in mosquito net and that only her face was visible. He has
denied any overwriting in the figure 9 pm. It is admitted that on the
dying declaration, it is specifically mentioned that since the fingers of
left hand are burnt he has taken thumb impression of the right hand
and it is denied that both her hands were burnt. In re-examination,
P.W.2 has clarified that inadvertently he had stated in the examination-
pmw 8 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
in-chief that he has taken the impression of right toe. It is clear that
P.W.2 was confused and could not assertively stated before the Court as
to whether the thumb impression was taken or not.
7. P.W.1 - Dr. Shivdas Chavan had given treatment to the
injured in the Hospital. He has placed on record the original case
papers. It is stated that the injured had sustained 100% burns
superficial to deep, however, she was conscious and well-oriented
when she was admitted in the Hospital. That, he had endorsed upon
the dying declaration after it was recorded and the said endorsement is
at Exh.19. The injured had survived for two days and died on 24 th June
1996 at about 8.10 pm. According to P.W.1, the treatment had started
only after recording of the dying declaration. That, forearm and both
thighs were totally charred. That the dying declaration was recorded in
his presence.
8. The fact that P.W.2 has stated that he has recorded the
dying declaration which is marked at Exh.44 can only go to prove that
the statement of the injured was indeed recorded. However, it does not
prove the contents of the dying declaration. P.W.2 has not vouchsafed
about the allegations levelled against each of the accused.
pmw 9 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
9. P.W.2 has, in fact, not proved the contents of the dying
declaration. At this stage, it would be trite to place reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Laxmibai and Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra1. The Court while considering as to whether dying
declaration is a substantive evidence and whether mere exhibition of
the documents is sufficient to place implicit reliance upon it, placed
reliance upon the judgment in the case of King Emperor vs. Mathura
Thakur, wherein the Court has observed as follows:-
"As Taylor, J. in the case of King Emperor v. Mathura
Thakur, supra, rightly observed that what is made
admissible by Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is the
verbal statement made by the dying man to the Magistrate
and not the document prepared by the Magistrate. The
document made by the Magistrate does not amount to a
deposition or record of evidence so as to attract the
presumption under Section 80 of Evidence Act. Therefore,
what is admissible in evidence is the statement made by the
dying man as to who was responsible for causing his death
and not the paper on which dying declaration is recorded.
For these reasons therefore, Section 80 of the Evidence Act
cannot be invoked in respect of presumption to be drawn in
respect of dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate or
even an officer authorized by a law to take evidence. As a
sequel or our fining about in-applicability it or presumption
under Section 80 of Evidence Act, we further hold that the
Magistrate or the person who records a dying declaration
have to testify and prove who was named as offender by
the dying person before Court where trial proceedings
against accused are held."
1 2010(3) Crimes 308 (Bom.)
pmw 10 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
10. P.W.5 - Lata Kaur happens to be the mother of the
deceased. According to her, there was a persistent demand of
Rs.20,000/-. As far as the incident is concerned, it is the contention of
P.W.6 that she and her husband had returned from Pune at about 7.30
pm and within a short-while thereafter, her mother-in-law had rushed
home crying that Azadkaur was set ablaze. P.W.5 rushed to the house of
her daughter and saw her lying in a burnt condition in the house and
thereafter, she was taken to the Hospital by her and her mother-in-law
i.e. P.W.4. She was not sure as to whether the accused no.3 was elder or
younger sister of P.W.4. That, there is no cordial relations between the
accused No.3 and P.W.4.
11. P.W.6 - PSI Bhagwan Hinge happens to be the scribe of
Exh.30. He had conducted preliminary investigation and that by 18 th
August 1996, investigation was almost completed and after that he
was sent for duty as a Coastal Guard at Raigad. The said investigation
was handed over to PSI Bankar. That the FIR was registered at 2.30 am
on 23rd June 1996. P.W.6 had conducted the scene of offence
panchanama as well as the inquest panchanama. He has proved the
omissions of P.W.4.
pmw 11 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
12. The learned counsel appointed for the appellants has
vehemently submitted that the prosecution has not proved the case
inasmuch as firstly, the evidence of P.W.4 does not inspire confidence.
Her conduct at the time when her grand-daughter was set ablaze and
thereafter, does not appear to be natural. It cannot be believed that she
would rush home to call her son instead of rescuing her grand-
daughter seems to be unnatural. Secondly, no implicit reliance can be
placed on the dying declaration since P.W.2 has not deposed before the
Court the contents of the dying declaration. All that would be
established is that he had recorded a statement of the deceased. That,
no specific question in respect of the dying declaration was put to the
accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., since the Magistrate had not
deposed about the same. That, recording of a statement under section
313 of Cr.P.C. is not an idle formality. That, in fact, dying declaration
would be most clinching and incriminating evidence against the
accused and he has not been confronted with the same while recording
his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The evidence of P.W.4 is also
criticized on the ground that she has denied to have any relation with
original accused no.3 - Mankaur despite the fact that she happens to be
her sister. It is in view of this that no specific question about the
pmw 12 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
evidence of P.W.2 was asked to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
13. The learned counsel appointed for the appellants has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shaikh
Maqsood Vs. State of Maharashtra2, wherein the Apex Court has held
as follows :-
"The importance of observing faithfully and fairly the
provisions of section 313 of the Code cannot be too
strongly stressed. It is not sufficient compliance to string
together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he
has to say about them. He must be questioned separately
about each material substance which is intended to be used
against him. The questionings must be fair and couched in
a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to
appreciate and understand. Even when an accused is not
illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing
a charge of murder. Fairness, therefore, requires that each
material circumstance should be put simply and separately
in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed
or confused, can readily appreciate and understand."
14. It is lastly argued that in any case, the allegations against
the present appellants is that they had coerced the accused no.1 to set
Azadkaur ablaze and that the overt act is attributed only to accused
no.1 who is not before the Court.
15. The circumstances speak for themselves. Although P.W.4
claims that the whole incident had occurred in the house and the
2 2009(6) SCC 583
pmw 13 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
victim made no attempts to rescue herself. The scene of offence
panchanama speaks for itself. The trail of burnt pieces of the Saree of
the deceased upto 50 ft. from her house and the evidence that the
injured had collapsed on the road falsify the evidence of P.W.4. The
Court would not hesitate to draw an inference that P.W.4 is not an
eyewitness to the incident.
16. As against this, the learned APP has strongly supported the
judgment of the Sessions Court and it is submitted that the prosecution
has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That, the
incident had taken place in the house of the accused and there is no
plausible explanation under section 106 of the Evidence Act and the
judgment of the trial Court calls for no interference.
17. Upon perusal of the testimony of the witnesses and the
documents proved by the prosecution, it can be safely stated that P.W.4
is not a reliable witness. That, the dying declaration is not proved by
the prosecution in accordance with law. The most clinching and
incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused while
recording his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. That, the evidence
on record is not sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence
pmw 14 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
recorded against the accused. It is true that the incident has occurred
in the matrimonial house of Azadkaur and it was incumbent upon the
inmates of the house to give an explanation about the death of
Azadkaur by burn injuries. The onus is upon the prosecution to prove
that at the relevant time, all the appellants were at home and had
coerced and facilitated the accused no.1 to set his wife ablaze. The
Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Shah Vs. State of Bihar 3, in
paragraphs-17 and 21 has held thus :-
"17. In this case, as mentioned above, neither the prosecution
witnesses have deposed to that effect nor any other material
has been placed on record to show that the relationship
between the Appellant and the deceased was strained in
any manner. Moreover, the Appellant was not the only
person residing in the house where the incident took place
and it is brought on record that the parents of the Appellant
were also present on the date of the incident in the house.
The fact that other members of the family of the Appellant
were present shows that there could be another hypothesis
which cannot be altogether excluded. Therefore, it can be
said that the facts established do not Rule out the existence
of any other hypothesis. The facts established cannot be
said to be consistent only with one hypothesis of the guilt of
the Appellant.
21. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the
Accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge
of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link
to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by
circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which
3 Passed on 14.9.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1904/2019 (Hon'ble Supreme Court)
pmw 15 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
is required to be established by the prosecution is not
established, the failure of the Accused to discharge the
burden Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not
relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of
the defence is no ground to convict the Accused."
18. It is admitted by P.W.5 that her daughter Azadkaur was
lying in the house in a burnt condition when she reached there.
However, evidence on record more particularly, the scene of offence
panchanama would establish that the body of the injured was lying on
a road in burnt condition. There is interpolation in the dying
declaration. The medical case record would show that Fortwin was
rather administered to the injured. It is admitted by P.W.1 that Fortwin
happens to be a sedative. Moreover, accused no.1 who had doused his
wife with kerosene and had set her ablaze happens to be the juvenile
in conflict with law. The evidence on record would show that the direct
evidence in the form of the testimony of P.W.4 cannot be relied upon.
Similarly, the dying declaration is not proved in accordance with law
and the fact that the accused was not given an opportunity to explain
the allegations levelled in the dying declaration at the time of
recording of his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., constrain us
to hold that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. In view of the above discussion, the appeals deserve to be
pmw 16 of 17
apeal-257.98, apeal-634.97.doc
allowed. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Appeals are allowed;
(ii) The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused
vide judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.340 of 1996 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The appellants be acquitted of all the charges levelled against
them;
(ii) Bail bonds stand cancelled;
(iii) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded;
(iv) Appeals are disposed of on above terms.
19. Before parting with this judgment, we record our
appreciation for the efforts put in by the learned counsel Ms. Devyani
Kulkarni appointed to espouse the cause of the Appellants. Ms.Devyani
Kulkarni, learned counsel be paid professional fees for working out
these Appeals as per Rules.
(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
pmw 17 of 17
