Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. In view of these material omissions which amount to contradictions on vital aspects of the matter appearing in the evidence of this witness, the Trial Court ought to have held that this witness is not a witness of truth but in order to corroborate the second Dying Declaration, for the first time in the Court, he concocted a story. His evidence appears to be nothing but a patent lie only to give support and corroboration to the second Dying Declaration made by the deceased. His evidence, therefore, was unworthy of credit. The Trial Court has, in fact, committed a patent error in seeking assurance of P.W.1 - Chandrakala Pawar and P.W.2 - Milind Mane as regards second Dying Declaration while 10 of 22 cr.apeal-703-1999.doc arriving at a conclusion that second Dying Declaration was worth accepting in preference to the first one.

27. There is one more crucial aspect about evidence of Dr. Bhosale. Presence of Dr. Bhosale itself is doubtful in view of the endorsement on the medico-legal papers which essentially indicates the name of Dr. Gokhale and not Dr. Bhosale. This gives rise to a doubt as to whether Dr. Bhosale was in fact present at the time of recording Dying Declaration of Sharmila.

28. It is worthwhile to note that had Sharmila told her mother on 28th November, 1997 itself about the reasons for sustaining injuries, then surely, mother would have informed the Police immediately and that there was no need for Sharmila to make a second statement. The very fact that till 30 th November, 1997, no action 14 of 22 cr.apeal-703-1999.doc was taken by the Police to register an F.I.R itself would indicate that second Dying Declaration was never made.

29. There is one more interesting aspect to this case. The Trial Court appears to have turned blind eye to the evidence of Police Officer Koli who has testified that till 30 th November, 1997, he had no evidence to say that this was a case falling under section 306 of the I.P.C that itself goes to show that the story projected in the second Dying Declaration was concocted and made at the instance of relatives of Sharmila with a sole object to implicate the appellant. The same discussion is required to be made on the crucial evidence of P.W.6 - Ulhas Koranne - Special Judicial Magistrate who had recorded both the Dying Declarations of Sharmila. He testified that on 28th November, 1997, Head Constable V.B. Patil of Sassoon Police Station has given requisition to record Dying Declaration of Sharmila who was admitted in Ward No.27 of the Sassoon Hospital with history of burn injuries. This witness went to the Hospital. Doctor on duty was present in Ward No.27. He was one Dr. Jopale. Upon inquiry with Dr. Jopale, this witness was informed that the patient was conscious and was capable of giving her statement. Doctor examined the patient in his presence and 15 of 22 cr.apeal-703-1999.doc informed this witness that the patient is conscious and in a position to give statement. Accordingly, an endorsement was made on the form of Dying Declaration in the margin. This witness also personally verified whether the patient is in a fit condition to give the statement. This witness also appears to have put certain questions to the patient to ascertain fit condition of the patient such as her name, age, occupation etc. Having ascertained the fitness of the patient to give statement, he recorded her statement in the form of Dying Declaration. Evidence of this witness clearly indicates that patient viz: Sharmila stated that in the morning at about 8.00 a.m she lighted the gas stove for heating the milk. After cutting the milk bag, when she was putting the scissor on the shelf, kerosene lamp fell down and kerosene spread on her body. While she was keeping the kerosene lamp again on shelf, her gown caught fire due to the lightened gas stove and hence, she sustained burn injuries. When this witness asked her as to who extinguished the fire, she replied her husband i.e the appellant extinguished fire. Having made this statement before the Special Judicial Magistrate on 28 th November, 1997 immediately on 29 th November, 1997, this witness received another requisition from A.P.I Koli attached to Wanwadi Police Station to record her Dying Declaration again. This witness again 16 of 22 cr.apeal-703-1999.doc went to Ward No.27 and made inquiries with Dr. Gokhale who was on duty. This witness has not stated that it was Dr. Bhosale who was on duty and, therefore, prosecution story appears to be doubtful on the point of examination of the victim at the time of recording her second Dying Declaration. This witness thereafter made again the same inquiry and questioned victim as regards her fitness to give statement. Then he started recording her statement at 10.35 a.m. In her second statement, the victim now took an "U" turn by saying that there was quarrel between her and her husband at 8.00 p.m because she returned with one Jedhe on his scooter. The appellant severely harassed her over the whole night and in the morning, he scolded her and asked her to set herself on fire. At her husband's instance, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire.

30. As such, there are two contradictory Dying Declarations recorded within span of two days. As already stated, the learned Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the facts and the entire evidence as to why she accepted and believed the second Dying Declaration over the first one. There is every likelihood of the victim being tutored by the kith and kin before recording her 17 of 22 cr.apeal-703-1999.doc second Dying Declaration. Even if it is presumed for a moment that because the appellant asked her to set herself on fire, the question would be whether that is sufficient to invoke section 306 of the I.P.C?