Dismissed

State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Bansi Karpe and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2017APEAL/572/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court upheld the acquittal of two accused in a murder case involving second-degree burns. The court held the dying declaration unreliable due to inconsistencies and suppressed facts regarding an earlier statement, finding insufficient evidence to sustain homicide charges.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; accused acquitted. Orders for bond and security were cancelled.

State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Bansi Karpe and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 ) crap572.02

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 572 OF 2002

¶4

The State of Maharashtra..Appellant
Through PSI, MIDC Police Station,[original
for the complainant Harku Geeta Pawar,complainant]
R/o. Midsangvi, Tql. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Shivaji Bansi Karpe .. Respondents Age. 33 years [original accused

¶7

2. Mahadeo Bansi Karpe Nos.4 & 5] Age. 35 years

¶8

Both R/o. Majale Chincholi,
Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶9

Mr.P.G. Borade, A.P.P. for appellant/State.
Mr.N.C. Garud, Advocate for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :19.09.2017

¶11

JUDGMENT [PER : S.M. GAVHANE,J.] :-

¶12

.The appellant/State has filed this appeal to the

¶13

extent of acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are
respectively original accused Nos.4 and 5, for the
offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 504 read

¶14

with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short “the
IPC”], as per the judgment and order dated 15.06.2002 in
Sessions Case No.124 of 2001, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased
Alka was daughter of the complainant – informant Harku
Geeta Pawar [PW-2] who is resident of village Midsangvi,
Tal. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. She was married to
accused No.2-Trimbak Karpe in 1991 about 11 years prior
to the incident. Accused No.1 is father-in-law of the
deceased, while accused Nos.3,4 and 5 are respectively
sister and brothers of husband-accused No.2.

¶16

3.After the marriage, the deceased started

¶17

residing with the accused at village Majale Chincholi,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. Initially for 1½ years she was

¶18

treated properly by the accused. It is alleged that
thereafter all the people from the in-laws' house of the
deceased started harassing the deceased on account of

¶19

lifting cow-dung; that the new horse which was purchased

¶20

was costly and on saying her to bring Rs.25,000/- for
construction from her parents. The deceased used to say
that the financial condition of her parents is poor and
that they are not having money. Thereafter, the accused

¶21

used to beat, starve her and used to cause mental and
physical cruelty to her and abuse her. The deceased used
to tell the same to the complainant. However, he used to
send the deceased to the house of the accused. It is
alleged that two months prior to the incident the
deceased had come to the house of her parent for two days
and she told complainant that the accused had driven her

¶22

out of the house, as she did not bring Rs.25,000/- for
constructing the house. Thereupon, he convinced her and
she was sent to her in-laws' house.

¶23

4.On 20.09.2000 at about 12=00 noon the

¶24

complainant had a message that the deceased sustained
injuries due to flickering of stove and that she has been
admitted in Booth Hospital, Ahmednagar for treatment.

¶25

Thereafter, the complainant, his brother Vithoba and his

¶26

wife Satyabhama [PW-3] went to Booth Hospital in the
evening at about 06=00 p.m. to 07=00 p.m. At that time,
the deceased was not talking properly. Her father-in-law,
husband, sister-in-law and brother of her husband were

¶27

near her and they told him that she sustained burns,
while preparing tea on the stove. Further it is alleged

¶28

that due to the harassment caused to her by the accused
on 20.09.2000 at 7.30 a.m., the deceased herself poured
kerosene on her person and set her on fire. PW-2 lodged
complaint as above in MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar on
23.09.2000. After receiving the complaint treating the

¶29

same as FIR, Crime No.118 of 2000 for the offences
punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at
16=20 hours in the said police station. ASI Yusuf Shaikh
started investigation initially. It appears that prior
to registering the crime as above on 20.09.2000 on the

¶30

basis of station diary entry in the above said police
station regarding sustaining burns to the deceased, ASI

¶31

Shaikh Yusuf visited the spot of incident i.e. the house
of accused No.1, which has been shown by accused No.4 and
ASI Yusuf Shaikh prepared panchanama of said spot and
seized iron stove under the said panchanama [Exh.35].

¶32

5.During investigation on 24.09.2000, ASI Yusuf
Shaikh gave letter to Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate,
Ahmednagar to record dying declaration of the deceased,
who was admitted in Booth Hospital, Ahmednagar in injured
condition. Accordingly, Tahsildar Jagtap [PW-1] after
receiving said letter at 3=15 p.m. on that day
immediately reached Booth Hospital, Ahmednagar and met
Residential Medical Officer of the said hospital and told

¶33

him that he has to record dying declaration of the

¶34

patient/deceased and asked him to tell whether the
patient was fit to give statement or otherwise.
Thereupon, PW-1 recorded dying declaration [Exh.30] of

¶35

the deceased, wherein she stated that the incident took

¶36

place on 20.09.2000 at 7.30 a.m. and when she went out of

¶37

the house at 7.00 a.m. to lift cow-dung, at that time

¶38

accused No.4-Shivaji and accused No.5-Mahadeo pushed her
2-3 times and accused No.4 poured kerosene on her person
and threw match stick on her person. Accused No.5 and
the neighbours extinguished the fire. Accused No.5 and
her mother-in-law's brother Bhau Daunde sent her to
Ahmednagar by jeep. Said dying declaration was recorded
between 3.55 p.m. to 4.10 p.m.

¶39

6.After recording dying declaration as above,
offence under section 307 of the IPC was added in the

¶40

crime already registered against the accused. While the
deceased was taking treatment in Booth Hospital, she
succumbed to the injuries on 25.09.2000. Therefore,
offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC was added
in the above crime and further investigation was carried

¶41

by API Shaikh Rauf [PW-7]. He prepared inquest
panchanama of the dead body. He got the post mortem done
by Dr.S.D. Patil and Dr. Borhade. Said Doctors issued
port mortem report. It was opined that death was caused

¶42

due to cardiorespiratory failure due to septicemic shock

¶43

due to 95% burns. API Shaikh Rauf [PW-7] recorded

¶44

statement of witnesses including statement of mother of
the deceased. So also, he prepared another panchanama of
spot of incident [Exh.48] i.e. the site in front of the
house of the accused on 26.09.2000, where the kerosene

¶45

was allegedly poured on the person of the deceased and
she was set on fire. The accused were arrested.

¶46

7.After completion of investigation, the

¶47

Investigating Officer [PW-7] submitted charge-sheet in

¶48

the Court of JMFC, Ahmednagar against the accused for the
offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 323 read

¶49

with section 34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar as

¶50

the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and it was
assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar for
trial.

¶51

8.The charge was framed against all the accused

¶52

for the offences punishable under section 498-A read with
section 34 of the IPC against all accused and against
accused Nos.4 and 5 for the offences punishable under
sections 302 and 504 of the IPC individually or in
furtherence of their common intention read with section
34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the
charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence is denial
and that the deceased sustained burns accidentally. They
have not examined any witness in defence.

¶53

9.The prosecution has examined in all seven
witnesses and relied upon panchanamas and dying
declaration referred above. On considering the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar acquitted all the accused of
the offences U/s. 498-A, 302 and 504 r/w Sec.34 of the
IPC by the impugned judgment and order.

¶54

10.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order,
the appellant/State has filed this appeal only against

¶55

accused Nos.4 and 5/respondents on several grounds
mentioned in appeal and prayed to set aside the impugned
judgment and order.

¶56

11.We have heard learned APP and learned Counsel
appearing for the respondents/accused Nos.4 and 5. With
their assistance we have perused the evidence adduced by
the prosecution. We have perused the impugned judgment.

¶57

12.There is no dispute that the deceased was
married to accused No.2 in 1991 and after marriage she
went to the house of accused for co-habitation. On
20.09.2000 while she was residing with the accused at
Majale Chincholi, she sustained 95% burns at about 7=30
a.m. Thereafter, accused No.5-Mahadeo and Bhau Daunde –
maternal father-in-law of deceased sent her by jeep in
Booth Hospital, Ahmednagar. The deceased succumbed to
burn injuries on 25.09.2000 in the said hospital.

¶58

13.The case of the prosecution is that death of the

¶59

deceased is homicidal, accused Nos.4 and 5 pushed her
in the morning on the day of incident and then accused
No.4-Shivaji poured kerosene on her person and threw
match stick on her person and set her on fire. The
accused have denied the same and on their behalf it was
suggested to PW-2 – father of the deceased that she
sustained burns due to stove blasting and as such
according to them her death is accidental. To prove that
death of the deceased is homicidal, that the accused
Nos.4 and 5 are responsible for her death, that all the
accused have caused cruelty to the deceased and accused
Nos.4 and 5 had intentionally insulted the deceased, the

¶60

prosecution has relied upon evidence of following
categories.

¶61

(i)The post mortem report - Exh.24.

¶62

(ii) The dying declaration – Exh.30 recorded by PW-1 in presence of Dr.Palve [PW-6].

¶63

(iii)Evidence of PW's 2 & 3–parents of the deceased

¶64

14.As regards post-mortem report Exh.24, same is
admitted by the accused. It shows that the deceased
sustained 95% burns. Further it shows cause of death as,

¶65

“cardiorespiratory failure due to septicemic shock due to
95% burns”. But said cause of death is not sufficient to
infer that the deceased sustained burns accidentally or
said burns were caused to her by pouring kerosene and
after setting her on fire by the accused No.4 or 4 and 5
as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the post
mortem report is of no help to the prosecution to infer
that the death of the deceased is homicidal.

¶66

15.The next material piece of evidence relied upon

¶67

by the prosecution to prove that death of the deceased is
homicidal, is the dying declaration – Exh.30. This dying
declaration [Exh.30] shows that it was recorded on
24.09.2000 by the Tahsildar – Jagtap [PW-1]. PW-1 has
deposed that he received requisition letter on 24.09.2000
at about 13=15 hours requiring him to record dying
declaration of the deceased, who was admitted in the
hospital. His evidence shows that immediately he reached

¶68

to Booth Hospital, Ahmednagar. There he met the
Residential Medical Officer of the said hospital and told

¶69

him that he has to record dying declaration of the
patient. Said Doctor took him to the patient. He asked

¶70

the Residential Medical Officer as to whether the patient

¶71

was fit to give statement or otherwise. The Residential
Medical officer examined the patient clinically and gave

¶72

his opinion that the patient was capable to give
declaration. The Residential Medical officer had put

¶73

certain questions to the patient about her name, place of
residence etc. He requested the relatives of the patient

¶74

to quit the premises. The Residential Medical Officer
put fitness endorsement in his presence at the top of the

¶75

dying declaration. PW-1 further deposed that he
introduced himself to the patient. He also told the
patient the purpose of his visit. Then he started to put

¶76

questions to the patient and at the same time he started

¶77

writing her replies given to his questions. He recorded
statement of the patient as per her reply given to him.

¶78

After having recorded statement of the patient, he

¶79

obtained thumb impression at the bottom of the dying
declaration. He personally attested the thumb impression

¶80

of the patient and also signed the dying declaration. He
stated that the dying declaration Exh.30 shown to him is
the same. Thereafter, he again requested the Residential
Medical Officer to verify whether the patient had given
her declaration and she was capable physically to give
the same and the Medical officer put certain questions to
the patient, satisfied that the patient was all along
conscious while her statement was being recorded.

¶81

16.In the cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that
there was severe pain to the patient when her dying
declaration was recorded. She was giving statement with
interruption and with low tone. He personally did not
satisfy about mental condition of the patient. He could
not tell by which mode the Medical Officer examined the
patient. According to him, the Medical Officer might
have examined the patient within ten minutes. As stated
earlier, the patient/deceased had sustained 95% burns.

¶82

17.PW-6-Dr. Nilima Palve, who had examined the

¶83

deceased at the time of recording dying declaration

¶84

Exh.30 has stated that PW-1 – Jagtap, Executive

¶85

Magistrate came to her at 2=00 p.m. and told her that he
wanted to record statement of the deceased. Therefore, he

¶86

wanted to ascertain whether the patient was capable to

¶87

give statement or otherwise. She stated that she
accompanied PW-1 to burn ward. She examined the patient

¶88

and found that the patient was conscious and oriented and
in a condition to give statement and she was well
oriented. She stated that she put certain questions to

¶89

the patient and the patient replied the same. Therefore,

¶90

she concluded that the patient was mentally fit to give
statement. Accordingly, she put endorsement on the top of
dying declaration Exh.30 with her signature. Thereafter,

¶91

PW-1 recorded statement of the patient in her presence

¶92

and nobody was present there and the patient gave
statement in her presence. After recording the statement

¶93

she gave endorsement that the patient was all along

¶94

conscious while her statement was being recorded.

¶95

18.In the cross-examination, Dr.Nilima Palve (PW-6)

¶96

deposed that she has brought case papers and she can
produce the same. The history of the patient was
accidental one. So also she has stated that the
condition of the patient on 23.09.2000 at 10.00 p.m. was
very poor. On 24.09.2000 at 08.00 a.m. general condition
of the patient was poor and on that day at about 10.00

¶97

a.m. I.V. line was out. Hence, medicines could not be
given. On that day at 04.00 p.m. as per the record, the

¶98

patient was conscious and she was talking. However, at
that time general condition of the patient was poor.
Central Nervous System and Cardiorespiratory System were
found failure. Such failure caused physical and mental
impact on the patient. She had examined the pulse and
B.P. and temperature of the patient. She has not recorded

¶99

the same anywhere. Further, she stated that before her
the Magistrate did not introduce himself to the patient.

¶100

Perhaps by that time, she might have left the ward to
attend the other patients. Therefore, entire statement

¶101

of the patient could not be recorded in her presence.

¶102

Therefore, she could not put remark that she was present
all along. She stated that she used to sit in casualty
room of the hospital, since she was Casualty Medical
Officer. She admitted that the Magistrate after having
recorded statement came to her room and then she put her
endorsement on it. So also she admitted that she put
endorsement to complete the procedural aspects
mechanically.

¶103

19.From the above evidence of both PWs 1 and 6, it

¶104

is not clear as to which questions were put by them to
the patient/deceased to ascertain whether she was in a

¶105

position to give statement on 24.09.2000 between 03.55
p.m. to 04.10 p.m., when dying declaration Exh.30 was
recorded. So also, there is no consistency in the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 in respect of presence of
Doctor PW-6, while PW-1 was recording statement/dying
declaration [Exh.30]. Moreover, it is clear from the

¶106

evidence of PW-6 Dr. Palve that on 24.09.2000 patient was
conscious but general condition of the patient/deceased

¶107

was poor at 04.00 p.m.. Moreover, it is clear from the
evidence of PW-6 – Doctor that she was given letter by
PW-1 – Special Executive Magistrate in the hospital at
02.00 p.m. on 24.09.2000 while as per evidence of PW-1,

¶108

on that day he received letter of MIDC Police Station
requesting him to record dying declaration of the
deceased at 03.15 p.m. Therefore, it is doubtful whether
PW-1 had really met Dr. Palve [PW-6] at 02.00 p.m. on the
above said date. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the

¶109

patient was in a position to give statement on
24.09.2000, as claimed by PW's 1 and 6.

¶110

20.As referred above, PW-1 Tahsildar – Jagtap has
simply stated that he asked questions to the patient and
started writing replies given by the patient to his
questions and as such he recorded dying declaration
[Exh.30], as per replies given by the deceased. He has
not stated about the actual contents of dying declaration
[Exh.30] as referred earlier in detail in para 5 (supra)
about the involvement of accused Nos.4 and 5 in pushing

¶111

her and involvement of accused No.4-Shivaji in pouring
kerosene on her person and setting her on fire by
throwing match stick on her person. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the contents of Exh.30 – dying declaration
are proved by the prosecution. This conclusion is based
on the ratio laid down by Division Bench of this Court in

¶112

the case of Sk. Bibal @ Chunnu Shaikh Nizam Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2010 All MR (Cri) 779, wherein it was held
that merely stating that dying declaration was recorded
as per the narration of injured, would not amount to
proving the contents of the dying declaration.
Similarly, PW-1 has simply stated that he obtained thumb
impression of the deceased on the dying declaration. He

¶113

does not claim that he read over the contents of dying
declaration to the deceased and on her saying that said
contents are as per her say, he obtained her thumb
impression on the dying declaration. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the dying declaration [Exh.30] is the

¶114

statement as per the say of the deceased. Another aspect

¶115

to be noted is that in presence of Dr. Palve – PW-6, the

¶116

dying declaration [Exh.30] was in-fact not recorded

¶117

because as referred earlier her evidence shows that she

¶118

had left the ward of burn patients to attend other
patients and after statement was recorded, PW-1 came to

¶119

her room and then she put her endorsement. Said Doctor

¶120

has also not stated about the contents of dying
declaration - Exh.30. Moreover, she also does not claim

¶121

that said dying declaration was read over to the patient.
For all the reasons discussed above, we hold that the

¶122

prosecution has failed to prove that the dying
declaration [Exh.30] is trustworthy and reliable
statement of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said

¶123

that on the day of incident i.e. on 20.09.2000 both
accused Nos.4 and 5 abused or pushed the deceased and
thereafter accused No.4-Shivaji poured kerosene on her
person and set her on fire by throwing match stick, on
the basis of dying declaration Exh.30.

¶124

21.Another reason to hold that the dying

¶125

declaration [Exh.30] is not reliable and trustworthy is

¶126

that it has come in the evidence of both PW-1 and Dr.

¶127

Palve [PW-6] that earlier to dying declaration [Exh.30]
dated 24.09.2000, there was another dying declaration.
PW-1 has stated that from police report he came to know

¶128

that the dying declaration of the patient prior to
recording dying declaration [Exh.30] was recorded. PW-6
has also stated that she was aware that before dying
declaration Exh.30, earlier statement of the deceased was
recorded and Dr.Arun Pawar had examined the patient at
that point of time. The Investigating Officer API Shaikh
Rauf [PW-7] has also stated in the cross-examination that
on 20.09.2000 the dying declaration of the deceased came

¶129

to be recoded and that he has produced that statement of
the deceased along with record. It appears that said
statement/dying declaration dated 20.09.2000 is in the
record and proceedings. Said is of course not proved.
But if it is considered, it shows that at that time the
deceased had stated that she had given complaint against
nobody and she sustained burns due to blasting of stove.
Thus, even if said earlier statement is not proved, the

¶130

fact remains that the prosecution has suppressed the fact
of recording said earlier statement/dying declaration,
which does not suite to the prosecution. This also
creates doubt about truthfulness of dying declaration
[Exh.30].

¶131

22.Now coming to the evidence of parents of the
deceased, which is mainly on cruelty to the deceased,
PW-2 father of the deceased has stated that after

¶132

marriage of the deceased with accused No.2-Trimbak, she

¶133

was treated properly for about two years. Then they
started cruelty to the deceased on account of amount of

¶134

Rs.25,000/- which was required for construction. He
stated that he is a poor man and accused purchased horse.

¶135

Further he deposed that he came to know about the
illtreatment to his daughter, when he reached to the
hospital. About the incident of sustaining burns to the
deceased, he stated that he had no talk with the deceased

¶136

after he saw her in the hospital. He, of course, stated

¶137

that accused No.4 poured kerosene on the person of

¶138

deceased and accused No.5 set her on fire. This evidence

¶139

is contrary to the evidence of dying declaration
[Exh.30], as the deceased did not attribute role of
setting her on fire by pouring kerosene on her to accused
No.5. Moreover, he (PW-2) has not stated how he came to
know about role as above of accused Nos.4 and 5. When
deceased did not talk to him, when he reached in
hospital, he should have stated in that respect, because
he is not eye-witness to the incident. Therefore, his
evidence about involvement of accused Nos.4 and 5 in the
incident of causing burns to the deceased is not
believable.

¶140

23.In the cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that

¶141

accused are residing separate. So also, he deposed that

¶142

he does not know whether accused own 16 acres land or
otherwise and own she-goats or otherwise. He stated that
the accused are economically sound than him. He stated
that he is having other relatives in the village of the

¶143

accused and he did not tell said relatives about the

¶144

demand of Rs.25,000/- of the accused. Thus, it is clear
from his evidence that the accused are residing separate.
The financial condition of the accused is better than
him. Moreover, he did not disclose alleged illtreatment
to the deceased to his relatives from the village of the

¶145

accused. So also, it appears from his evidence that the
deceased did not disclose to him alleged cruelty to her
prior to the incident during 11 years period after her
marriage. Therefore, his vague evidence is not

¶146

sufficient to state that really all the accused or
accused Nos.4 and 5 caused cruelty to the accused.

¶147

24.It is pertinent to note that PW-2 - father of

¶148

the deceased lodged complaint/FIR on 23.09.2000 [Exh.32]
in MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar. He deposed that the
contents of the said complaint/FIR are correct. In the
said FIR the allegations regarding demand of Rs.25,000/-

¶149

by the accused are made. So also, it is alleged that the
deceased was caused cruelty on account of not lifting

¶150

cow-dung and that the new horse was not good etc. The

¶151

last allegation made in the FIR is that on boaring to the
harassment caused to the deceased, on 20.09.2001 at 7.30
a.m., the deceased herself poured kerosene on her person
and set her on fire. Thus, when PW-2 admits that
contents of the said FIR are true, it apparently shows
that death of the deceased was suicidal.

¶152

25.The evidence of PW-3 mother of the deceased is

¶153

that at that point of time accused used to reside

¶154

jointly. Initially life of the deceased was smooth. But

¶155

then accused started illtreating her, since the deceased
could not meet out their demand of Rs.25,000/- made by

¶156

them for construction of the house. She deposed that
accused had also purchased a horse and on that count they

¶157

used to beat the deceased. She claimed that she came to

¶158

know about the same from the deceased, whenever the
deceased in those days used to come to her house. She

¶159

further deposed that she could meet the deceased 15 days

¶160

prior to the incident at her house when the deceased had

¶161

come to her house out of anger. She stated that the

¶162

deceased was beaten at her matrimonial house and the

¶163

deceased disclosed about illtreatment caused to her by
the accused and that she had agreed to give Rs.25,000/-
to the accused. In the cross-examination, she stated that

¶164

she did not enquire to her relatives who reside in the

¶165

village of accused about illtreatment caused to the
deceased. So also they did not move to police station to

¶166

that effect. So also, she did not go along with daughter

¶167

to ascertain the fact of illtreatment to her. She

¶168

deposed that she and her relatives were in the hospital
for seven days. Further, she admitted that they all have

¶169

decided to lodge complaint against accused and
accordingly complaint was lodged. Moreover, she admitted
that the accused own total 15 acres land and each accused

¶170

has independent house. It is clear that the deceased was

¶171

married to accused No.2, 11 years prior to the incident

¶172

in 2000. If it was case that she was harassed by the

¶173

accused, as deposed by PW-3, PW-3 would have earlier
lodged complaint against accused about the illtreatment
to the deceased. Admittedly, no such complaint was made

¶174

to police. So also, it appears that financial condition
of the accused is sound. Therefore, the evidence of PW-3
is not sufficient to infer that either of the accused or
accused Nos.4 and 5 caused cruelty to the deceased.

¶175

26.For the reasons discussed here-in-above, as per
the dying declaration [Exh.30] dated 24.09.2000 recorded

¶176

by PW-1, death of deceased was homicidal and as per the
FIR Exh.32, it was alleged by the father of the deceased

¶177

that the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, in any

¶178

case, it cannot be said that death of the deceased was
homicidal and possibility of her death being accidental

¶179

or suicidal cannot be ruled out. The Trial Court held
that death of the deceased is homicidal on the basis of

¶180

post-mortem report, inquest panchanama and spot
panchanama. Said finding of the Trial Court is incorrect.

¶181

The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution to

¶182

connect the accused with the death of the deceased is

¶183

dying declaration [Exh.30] and as observed earlier, it is

¶184

held that said dying declaration is not trustworthy and

¶185

reliable, therefore, it cannot be said that accused Nos.4

¶186

and 5 have abused the deceased on the date of incident on
20.09.2000 in the morning and that accused No.4-Shivaji
poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire by
match-stick. Therefore, we hold that the above referred
evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to
infer that the accused Nos.4 and 5 caused cruelty to the

¶187

deceased, intentionally insulted her and caused her death

¶188

by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene either
individually or in furtherance of their common intention
and as such the prosecution has failed to prove offences
punishable under sections 498-A, 302 and 504 of the IPC
individually against the said accused or in furtherance
of their common intention, read with section 34 of the

¶189

IPC. The Trial Court has rightly held that the
prosecution has failed to prove said offences against
accused Nos.4 and 5/respondents, against whom present

¶190

appeal is filed. Therefore, we hold that the view taken

¶191

by the Trial Court in acquitting the respondents/accused

¶192

Nos.4 and 5 of the aforesaid offences is a reasonably

¶193

possible view and it cannot be said that the said view
taken by the Trial Court is erroneous or the same is not
in accordance with the evidence. Therefore, there is no
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal of accused Nos.4 and 5/respondents. As such,

¶194

we hold that the appeal being devoid of merits, same is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the
same.

¶195

respondents/accused Nos.4 and 5 shall stand cancelled.
They shall furnish fresh personal bond and surety bond of

¶196

Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each as per section
437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Trial

¶197

Court. The Trial Court shall get the said compliance
done.

¶198

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [T.V.NALAWADE,J.]

¶199

snk/2017/SEP17/ crap572.02

State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Bansi Karpe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Bansi Karpe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwas Vasantrao Muglikar Vs Jyoti Murlidhar Muglikar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Poty @ Popat Parkhiya Kale

Bibhishan Rajaram Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Babu Ghodake

Dr. Sangita Prashant Patil Vs Dr. Prashant Shriniwas Patil

Sangita Prashant Patil Vs Prashant Shriniwas Patil