Dismissed

State of Maharashtra through Pso Akola Distt Akola v. Pramod Devidas Wankhade and Others

Bombay HC6 Aug 2012APPA/559/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal reviewing an acquittal in a murder case, the High Court rejected the State's appeal, upholding the trial Court's refusal to place implicit reliance on contradictory dying declarations, citing prior variance in incident details. Leave to appeal is refused.

What did the court decide?

Implicit reliance could not be placed on the two dying declarations due to inter se variance existed in their recitals.

State of Maharashtra through Pso Akola Distt… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 appa559.12.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.559 OF 2012 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._____ OF 2012

¶5

(The State of Maharashtra, through PSO Civil Lines, Akola PS, Akola ..vs.. Pramod Devidas Wankhade and two others)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

Mr. A.S. Sonare, Addl. P.P. for the applicant/State.

¶8

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 6th, 2012.

¶9

By this application, the applicant/State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Akola dated 18-4-2012 in Sessions Trial No.192/2011 acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

The entire case of the prosecution revolves around two dying declarations at Exh.48 and 51 recorded by P.W.3-Sanjay Garkar, Naib-Tahsildar and P.W.4-API Prakash Akotkar, respectively. The trial Court came to the conclusion that upon appreciation of the recitals of the dying declarations, it was apparent that there was inter se variance in the two dying declarations. In the dying declaration at Exh.48, the declarant had stated while she was present in the house accused No.1-Pramod had set her ablaze while accused Nos.2 and 3 had quarreled with the deceased. In

¶11

2 appa559.12.odt

¶12

second dying declaration at Exh.51, the declarant had stated at the time of incident, she was alone in the house and all the accused entered in her house on 9/10/2010 and demanded Rs.15,000/- for purchasing a house/plot. The deceased thereafter assured the accused and the accused left the house and when she came near a neem tree and was standing in front of the house, the accused followed her and encircled her and accused No.1-Pramod brought kerosene from her own house and thereafter accused Nos.2 and 3 held the deceased. After the kerosene was sprinkled on her by accused No.1-Pramod, accused No.1-Pramod set her ablaze. In light of such contradictory versions, the trial Court found implicit reliance could not be placed on the two dying declarations.

¶13

In the case reciting of multiple dying declarations, the dying declarations should be consistent with each other in respect of the prelude to the incident, the incident itself, the number of accused and the overt act attributed to each of the accused. In the event of any variance in the recitals of the dying declarations, no implicit reliance can be placed on the said dying declarations and the accused would thus be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh s/o Arjun Dodorkar (Sonar) .vs. State of Maharashtra reported at 2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 1599, . Upon hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant and perusing the findings of the trial Court, according to us, implicit reliance could not be placed on the dying declarations and thus we see no

¶14

3 appa559.12.odt

¶15

perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against the respondents. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Leave is refused.

¶17

JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

pma

State of Maharashtra through Pso Akola Distt Akola v. Pramod Devidas Wankhade and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra through Pso Akola Distt Akola v. Pramod Devidas Wankhade and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Wahid Shaikh S/O Abdul Karim Vs State of Maharashtra through the Superintendent of Police Nagpur District Nagpur and Others

Rewislala Sojilal Chavhan, C/7568 Vs the Commissioner of Police Nagpur and Others

A Jabbar a Sattar Shaikh Vs Dig Prisons (East) Nagpur and Another

The Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Forest Officer Sironcha Tah Sironcha Vs Bapaiyya S/O Venkayya Guduri

The Authorized Officer and Sub Divisional Forest Officer Sironcha Tah Sironcha Vs Bapaiyya S/O Venkayya Guduri

Devanand S/O Galomal Nichwani and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Jaripatka Nagpur