Skip to main content

A single reliable dying declaration is enough to convict

A single reliable dying declaration is enough to convict perpetrators of a crime, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court ruled on Tuesday. The court made the observation while rejecting the application of a Kanhan-based man who set his wife afire after a quarrel. The woman had given two dying declarations and oral one to her mother, immediately after the incident. The man challenged it, stating that the prosecution had failed to examine the doctor, who declared that the wife was fit to give dying declaration.

However, the court declined to accept petitioner Sukhchand Bhalavi's submissions. "There need not be multiple dying declarations. A singular dying declaration, if free from clouds of suspicion and inspires confidence, can be the basis for convicting perpetrators of crime," a single-judge bench of justice Vinay Deshpande ruled.
The couple in question had entered into wedlock in 2006. It was the second marriage for both of them. Bhalavi's first wife had also died after suffering burn injuries. The second wife, Kalpana, had one daughter from her first marriage and had a son from Sukhchand. Bhalavi used to work as a labourer at a saw mill.
On the fateful night of December 27, 2008, there was an argument between the couple, after Sukhchand came home drunk and demanded food. He abused Kalpana and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze before fleeing home.
Kalpana's mother Suman rushed to daughter's home where the latter revealed that it was husband who set her on fire. Her mother then rushed her to Mayo Hospital and lodged a police complaint. Kalpana's dying declaration was recorded by special executive magistrate where she again named Bhalavi. Even while writing first information report (FIR), which court considered as first declaration, she maintained the same position.
After Kalpana died on January 1, 2009, Sukhchand was booked under Section 302 of IPC and tried in the Nagpur sessions court, which awarded him life sentence.
Justice Deshpande noted that the dying declaration recorded by executive magistrate was read to the injured wife and she admitted that all contents were true. Later, her toe impression was obtained because of burning of her both the hands, which was also confirmed during post mortem.
"After perusal of two written dying declarations, it's clear that both are consistent in nature. Further, there is an immediate disclosure by Kalpana to mother that it's the husband who poured kerosene and set her ablaze. The evidence of all prosecution witnesses has not shattered at all during the course of their cross-examination. Therefore, we're of view that at the appellate stage no interference is required," the court ruled before dismissing husband's application.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf