Nathu
Vs. The State of Maharashtra [1999] INSC 246 (4 August 1999)
G.T.Nanavati,
S.N.Phukan
The
appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Nagpur, for causing death of his wife, bypouring
kerosene on her person and setting her. ablaze. The High Court of Bombay has
confirmed his conviction. Hence, this appeal by Special leave.
The
conviction of the appellant is based upon dying declarations. Apart from the
three oral dying declarations made before PW-l, Ambar, PW-2 Suresh and PW-5 Mandabai,
the prosecution had relied upon two written dying declarations. The first such
dying declaration was recorded by P.S.I. Mashirkar PW-6 who was then attached
to Kotwali police station. After receiving a telephone message at the Police
Station at about 3 p.m. that one woman had sustained burn
injuries in Hiwarl Nagar Zopadpatti near the Power House he rushed to that
place and recorded the statement(Ex. 34) of Vandana. He then went back to the
Police station and registered an offence on the basis thereof.
Varidana
was then taken to the Medical College Hospital. Police Inspector Dhamankar who was
also attached to Kotwali Polioe Station and was on patrolling duty received a
wireless message regarding Vandana having received burn injuries at about 4,00
p.m. He first went to the place of the incident but on coming to know that Vandana
was taken to the Medical College Hospital he went to the hospital. As her
condition was serious and as the Doctor in charge certified that she was fit
enough' to make a statement he recorded her statement (Ex.23) in the presence
of two panch witnesses, PW-1 Ambar and Janardan Vithobaji Bhanarkar. It was
recorded at about 5
p.m. Police Inspector Dhamankar
was .not then aware of the fact that an offence was already registered at the
Police Station.
The
evidence of Mashirkar and Dhamankar has remained unshaken and it clearly
establishes that Vandana was in a fit condition to make these statements. There
is no reason to doubt that whatever she had stated was taken down by them
correctly.
PW-1 Ambar
was a neighbour of the accused. He has deposed that on the date of the incident
about 2.00 p.m. he heard shouts coming from the hut
of the accused, tie rushed to that place and saw Vandana lying near their hut
in a burnt condition. She had told him that it was the accused. who had set her
ablaze. He has also deposed about his going with Vandana to the Hospital. There
in his presence Police Inspector Dhamankar had recorded her statement and he
had also put his signature there on. He categorically stated that. Vandana was
conscious and was in a position to make the statement. Dr. Deshpande's evidence
supports him on this point. Only suggestion made to this witnesswas that he nad
not really gone to the hospital and his signature was obtained on a blank piece
of paper at the Police Station. This suggestion was denied by the witness. We
do not find any material on record to create any doubt regarding reliability of
this witness, tie being a neighbour, haa no reason to falsely involve the
accused or be a party to a wrong statement made by Vandana. The trial Court and
the High Court after appreciating his evidence and that of the other two
witnesses have found it trustworthy. We see no reason to differ from this
finding recorded by the Courts below. In view of the evidence of three
witnesses and the two dying declarations, it clearly stands established that
the appellant had poured kerosene over the body of Vandana and had set her
ablaze because she had protested when the appellant started beating their son. We
find no substance in this appeal and it 1s accordingly dismissed.
Back