Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The prosecution case, in brief is as under:-

3. The appellant No.2 - Ankush Rajaram More and Akshata Ankush More got married on 17/05/1995 and the marriage was solemnized at Mumbai. It is the prosecution case that during marriage ceremony, accused No.2 demanded scooter and, subsequently, when he was promised that the scooter would be given to him, he performed the religious ceremony.

4. On 27/09/1995, there was a quarrel between Akshata and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and, on the next date, i.e on 28/09/1995, Akshata poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. Prosecution witnesses alleged that it was, in fact, not a suicide but accused had gagged her and had set her ablaze after pouring kerosene on her. The first dying declaration of Akshata was recorded by the Police Officer and the second dying declaration was recorded by Special Metropolitan Magistrate. The first dying declaration was treated as FIR and the offence was registered against the accused.

7. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Trial Court had considered the evidence in its proper perspective and, therefore, the said judgment and order was liable to be confirmed.

8. The learned APP submitted that it could not be said that other witnesses have made improvements in their evidence.

It was further submitted that in the second dying declaration, the deceased had categorically stated that the appellants were responsible for her death and there was no reason to discard the said dying declaration.

An allegation was made against appellant No.1 that she used to harass her mentally and physically and, therefore, on account of that she had taken drastic step. The panchanama was prepared on the same day.

18. In the light of the first dying declaration, the FIR discloses that, initially, complaint under section 498- A was registered against the appellants in view of dying declaration of the deceased which is recorded at Exhibit- 45. Thereafter, the second dying declaration has been recorded at Exhibit-

The Special Metropolitan Magistrate who recorded the second dying declaration has stated that though the victim had given replies in Marathi, he had taken down the same in English as he was not conversant in writing Marathi though he understood the language very well. In my view, the statement made by the deceased in the dying declaration does not support the prosecution case of the accused having poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. There is, therefore, serious discrepancy between the version given by the deceased in the dying declaration which was recorded by the Police Officer and by the said Metropolitan Magistrate in the presence of the doctor and the version given by the relative of the deceased who have stated that the deceased had informed her that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The Apex Court in catena of cases has observed that sufficient weightage has to be given to the dying declaration because that is the last statement made by the deceased before his death. The Sessions Court has erred in discardingig these two dying declarations. The Sessions Court, in my view, has erred in not relying on dying declaration recorded by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate merely because he has recorded in English the answers which were given by the deceased in Marathi. It is a common knowledge that many persons understand Marathi though they cannot write in Marathi. The person who recorded the dying declaration is a Special Metropolitan Magistrate and not a Police Officer and, therefore, in my view, the Sessions Court clearly erred in discarding his testimony or in finding fault in his procedure of recording answers in English though they were replied in Marathi.