RAMDAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Mst. Baby was the wife of appellant ramdas who had also married Kamlabai, the co-appellant. All the three were living together in the same house. In the intervening night of 7th and 8th of June, 1989, a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 was found stolen from the house. Next day in the morning the appellants abused the deceased as they apprehended that she had committed the theft. At about 2. 00 p. m. both the appellants closed the doors of the house from inside and asked the deceased to return the stolen money. The deceased kept mum. The appellants then poured the kerosene oil and set her ablaze. The accused ran away after setting the deceased on fire. When the accused started crying outside the house Mst. Munnibai (PW6) , Mst. Chandrabai (PW7) , Mst. Shahjadi (PW8) came at the spot alongwith others. When the appellant Ramdas went to the hospital, the appellant Kamlabai went to the shop of Devidas (PW 10) brother of the appellant ramdas and told him that both the accused had burnt the deceased. Thereafter, devidas reached in the house and saw that Mst. Baby was fully burnt. They went to the hospital along with the mother of the deceased. Dr. V. D. Kharbade (PW 15) sent the information to the police station about the burning of Mst. Baby. The police reached on the spot. At the request of the police, Naib Tehsildar (PW3) recorded the dying declaration of Mst. Baby vide exhibit P4. Dr. Kharbade certified the condition of Mst. Baby to be able to make the statement before recording her statement. Mst. Baby died on 13/06/1989 in Nagpur hospital, the information of which was sent to the police station concerned. After registering the case and completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the accused persons in the trial court. On conclusion of the trial, the learned sessions judge found both the appellants guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 302 and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
(2.)Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of crime. It is submitted that as there was no corroboration to the dying declaration of the deceased, Mst. Baby, the trial court was not justified in convicting the accused.
(3.)We are not impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel as in the instant case, both the courts have found on facts that the dying declaration made by the deceased was, voluntary, natural and reliable and there was no reason to disbelieve it. There was sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the deceased by way of medical evidence and the other evidence produced by the prosecution. After going through the statements of the witnesses, we find no ground to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the courts below regarding conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.