Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the accused's involvement was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the dying declaration was reliable.

Summary

The appellant, Ashok Laxman Gaikwad, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly setting fire to his lover by pouring kerosene on her and igniting it with a match. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the deceased's dying declaration recorded by a magistrate and corroborated by a doctor's testimony that the victim was conscious and could give the statement. The trial court convicted the accused, and the High Court of Bombay affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence proved the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the reliability of the dying declaration and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, the dying declaration, and the trial and appellate courts' findings, concluding that there was no reason to disbelieve the declaration or the prosecution's evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the life sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the dying declaration of the deceased is admissible and reliable in establishing the accused's guilt.
Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's affirmation of the conviction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderdying declarationSection 302 IPClife imprisonmentappealSupreme Court

Judgment

)
ASHOK LAXMAN GAIKWAD A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

APRIL 19, 2006

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860:

s. 302-Accused setting afire his beloved-Conviction by trial Court- C
Affirmed by High Court-Involvement of accused in the offence has been
clearly proved beyond any doubt-There is no reason to disbelieve the dying
declaration and the other evidence tendered by prosecution-No case is
made out for interference.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 955 of D
2005.

From the Judgment and Final Order dated 16.6.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Cr.A. No. 95 of 1998.

Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai and K. Rajeev for the Appellant. E
A.P. Mayee and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

ORDER F
This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court
ofBombay in Criminal Appeal No. 95of1988 dated 16th June, 2004 dismissing
the appeal filed by the appellant/accused and thereby convicting the appellant
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer G
rigorous imprisonment for life.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took us through

- )
the entire evidence and the post mortem certificate and, in particular, the
evidence of the doctor. We have carefully perused the evidence adduced on
behalf of the respondent. We have perused the dying declaration given by H
71
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the deceased on 25th January, 1987 at 22.30 p.m. It is seen from the remarks
of the doctor that the patient, namely, the deceased was conscious and was
in a position to give the statement recorded by the Magistrate. It is further
seen from the above declaration that the deceased had love affair with the
accused and that she opposed the accused marrying for the second time and
B that the accused on the fateful date pourded kerosene on her person and with
the help of burning match stick set fire on her, due to which she received the
burn injuries. It is clear from the dying declaration that the accused poured
kerosene on her person and with the help of burning match stick set fire on
her.

c We have also perused the medical evidence given by Dr. Ramesh
Namuaji Bhange (P. W.6). It is seen from the doctor's evidence that the deceased
disclosed the history to the doctor that the accused poured kerosene on her
body and set her on fire and that the judicial Magistrate has recorded the
dying declaration of the deceased. It is also seen from the doctor's evidence
D that before her statement was recorded by the Sub-Judicial Magistrate he had
examined her and found that she was conscious and in a position to give the
statement. Accordingly, the doctor has signed the endorsement appearing on
the dying declaration. He has also identified his signature on the dying
declaration. In cross examination nothing contrary has been elicited to discredit
' .
the doctor's evidence. The doctor has also explained as to why he initially
E recorded the word 'suicidal' on the first page of the case papers and when
he found the initial statement was wrong, he extracts the word 'homicidal' on
the first page of the case papers. I-le has also explained under that circumstance
he has recorded the word 'suicidal'. The doctor also denied the suggestion
made to him that the patient has not given him any history against the
F accused and it is also not correct to say that the dying declaration was not
recorded by the Sub-Judicial Magistrate in his presence.
,,
We have also persued the other evidence tendered by the prosecution
which in our view supports the case put forward by the prosecution. The
learned judges of the Division Bench has considered the entire evidence
G tendered on behalf of the prosecution in its proper perspective and has come
to the conclusion that the prosecution has clearly proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The reasons recorded by the learned Judges of the Division
Bench of the High Court is cogent and convincing. The learned Judges have
also affinned the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune for
H the ample reasons recurded in their judgment. We have not been persuaded
........
ASHOKLAXMANGAIKWAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 73

to take a different view than the one taken by the Division Bench of the High A
Court. The involvement of the accused in the offence alleged has been clearly
proved beyond any doubt. We have also no reason to disbelieve the dying
declaration given by the deceased and the evidence tendered on the side of
the prosecution. In our opinion, no case is made out for interference by this
Court with the well considered judgment of the High court affirming the B
verdict of the learned Sessions Judge.

Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.

RP. Appeal dismissed.

I ..