Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. As regards the another / second Dying Declaration is concerned, the same was recorded by PW7 - Sanjay Kacharuji Chavan. His evidence shows that from 2014 till March-2018 he was the Special Judicial Magistrate. On 07.02.2018 he was working in the Court of Senior Division, Aurangabad and on that day around 06:15 p.m. he received requisition from PW9 - Sudhakar Narayan Chavan, the Investigating Officer to record the statement of Deceased who was admitted in Dahiphale Hospital, Aurangbad. There is no dispute on the aspect that initially Deceased was admitted in GHATI Hospital, Aurangabad and thereafter on 07.02.2018 she was shifted to Dahiphale Hospital, Aurangabad. This aspect becomes further clear from the evidence of PW6 - Dr. Prakash Ashokrao Gadge Patil, who was working as the Resident Medical Officer (RMO) with the Dahiphale Hospital at Aurangbad from January-2018 till March -2018. His evidence shows that he appeared before learned Trial Court with the original case papers of Deceased. His evidence shows that on 07.02.2018 Deceased was admitted in the said hospital.

28. The evidence of PW6 - Dr. Prakash Ashokrao Gadge Patil corroborated by PW7 - Sanjay Kacharuji Chavan shows that while 23 CrApeal30.2022 recording this second Dying Declaration, Deceased was in a fit state to give statement. The evidence of PW7 - Sanjay Kacharuji Chavan shows that when he went to record the Dying Declaration, the relatives of Deceased were present with her and he directed them to go out. It is thus clear that while recording the second Dying Declaration, none of the relatives of Deceased were present. Prosecution has established that Deceased was in the hospital and was fit to give statement while recording her second Dying Declaration. Mere presence of police persons from the concerned police station at that point of time cannot be the reason to discard the Dying Declaration. Thus, this second Dying Declaration can be relied upon.

29. The evidence of PW7 - Sanjay Kacharuji Chavan wherein the second Dying Declaration is brought on record at Exh.72 goes to show that, Deceased gave statement in respect of pouring kerosene from the Can on her and igniting fire with the match stick by the Appellant. True it is that in the second Dying Declaration she had not stated regarding demand of money in the afternoon by the Appellant to her, what she stated is that in the afternoon at 02:00 p.m. when she was present in the house, the Appellant suddenly came with the Can of kerosene, poured the same on her person and ignited the fire. Further, she did not state in her second Dying Declaration that she embraced the Appellant after she was set on fire. True, that on these aspects, there is 24 CrApeal30.2022 inconsistency in both the Dying Declarations. However, on the material aspect i.e. pouring kerosene and setting her ablze with the help of match stick by the Appellant, there is consistency. In both the Dying Declarations, Deceased had stated that, it was the Appellant who poured kerosene from the Can on her and set her on fire.

30. As seen above, the first Dying Declaration was recorded by PW1 - Sakhu Bhagwan Rathod by way of interrogation and the second Dying Declaration was in question answer form. Therefore, there cannot be word to word similarly in the two Dying Declarations recorded by two different persons. What is important, is the material aspect i.e. cause of burn injuries. Both the Dying Declarations are consistent that, it was the Appellant who poured the kerosene on Deceased and set her on fire.