Dismissed

Krishna Rupsing Rupsen Rathod. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Bombay HC26 Oct 2016APPLN/5834/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad rejected the application for bail sought by the applicant accused of murder and culpable homicide. The Court held that no case for bail was made out as the consistent dying declarations of the deceased were corroborated by spot panchanama and oral declarations.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail was rejected and no relief was granted.

1.The applicant/accused in Crime No.30 of 2016, registered with Ambajogai Rural Police Station, Dist. Beed, for offences punishable under section 302, 307, 498-A, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by this application, is seeking his release on bail, after filing of the charge-sheet.

2.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant/accused. He argued that in first dying declaration deceased Vandana has stated that she was taken to hospital by Shantabai and ladies from the locality; whereas in her second dying declaration, Vandana has stated that her

father-in-law had taken her to the hospital. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the applicant, the dying declarations of Vandana are doubtful. Learned Counsel further argued that co-accused in this case are already released on bail and therefore imposing conditions the applicant may also be released on bail.

4.I have perused the charge-sheet and considered the rival submissions. The first dying declaration of deceased Vandana was recorded at SRTR Hospital at Ambajogai by police officer at 4.25 p.m. of 25.04.2016. Her second dying declaration came to be recorded at the very same hospital by the Executive Magistrate, Ambajogai on 25.04.2016 itself from 18.40 hours to 18.55 hours. In

both these dying declarations, deceased Vandana is consistent in stating that after quarreling with her husband i.e. present applicant, he poured kerosene on her person and incinerated her by means of burning match stick. Perusal of first dying declaration of deceased Vandana does not show that persons from the locality had taken her to the hospital. What is stated by her is those

persons wrapped a shawl around her person and she was taken to the hospital in the auto-rickshaw of Avinash Rathod. Even otherwise in case of plurality in dying declaration, what is required is consistency in material particulars. In the case in hand, material particulars are in respect of incineration of Vandana. On this aspect she is consistent.

5.Statement of Avinash Rathod – driver of auto- rickshaw shows that the present applicant as well as his father accompanied Vandana to the hospital. The effect of this conduct will have to be adjudicated at the trial because both dying declarations of Vandana are consistent.

6.If one requires corroboration for these consistent dying declarations, then there are oral dying declarations of deceased Vandana made to her parents as well as her relatives, which are also consistent with her initially recorded dying declaration. Spot panchanama also corroborates version of the deceased, who prima facie died homicidal death because of burn injury.

Krishna Rupsing Rupsen Rathod. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Rupsing Rupsen Rathod. v. the State of Maharashtra.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Premsingh Duglach and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Dagdu Bhokre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akashay S/O Rajanikant Makasare Vs the State of Maharashtra Q

Sujit @ Nana Bharat Shingare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Sou. Sunita Vijaya Karhale. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin S/O Gumansing Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra