Case No. 92 of 2001.
Laxmn Pingale to accused No. 1 Vikas Vayse.
months, the marriage relations went on well.
and continued giving more trouble to her.
Rekha started quarrelling with the deceased.
Karjat and the case was committed to the Court of Session.
Smt. Bondre, maternal aunt of Rekha.
declaration between 12:30 to 13:00 hrs. on May 18, 2001.
imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.
and 342 read with Section 34, IPC.
the said order was confirmed by the High Court.
under Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC.
The above decision is challenged in the present appeal.
hearing and that is how the matter is before us.
9.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
appellants were responsible for death of Rekha.
initial in point of time and they were oral.
READ Whether application for police protection can be rejected if wrong provision is quoted?
Sections 302 and 342 read with Section 34, IPC.
persons who are near relatives of the deceased.
police would not fail to record his statement.
on 01.06.2001 at 5:45 hours.
therefore, be seen to be a patent lie.
It is true that she was also telling Police that her one end of saree fell on fire and she was burnt. Accused Vikas told me that he poured water from the mud pot to extinguish the fire of Rekha.
Thereafter, he switched over to correct himself that this was told by Rekha and not by Vikas. This concluding part of the cross examination clearly indicates that father is making exonerating statements in a calculated manner.
When I was talking with Rekha, accused Vikas went to bring medicine. Accused brought Rekha in the Civil Hospital,Ahmednagar.
that Vikas had gone to fetch medicines.
dilute the effect of the same.
record, she was taken to the hospital by Baby Shantilal.
requisition from police at about 11.00 a.m.
time. The said dying declaration was exhibited as Ex. 56.
mistake, really it was 11.55 a.m.
statement. In both the dying declarations, i.e.
not support the case of the prosecution in Court.
themselves are relevant facts in certain cases.
by that sense or in that manner.
21.Section 32 contains several clauses.
persons death comes into question.
lie against B by As widow.
the lips of a dying man.
Have I met hideous death within my view,Retaining but a quantity of life, Which bleeds away,Even as a form of wax,Resolveth from his figure,Against the Fire?
What is the world should Make me now deceive,Since I must lose the use of all deceit?
Since it is true That I must die here,Live hence by truths?
considerations to speak truth and truth only.
may be the only eye-witness of a serious crime.
go unpunished causing miscarriage of justice.
before Indian as well as foreign courts.
administered in a Court of Justice.
can, in no circumstances, be the basis of a conviction.
solely relied upon to base the conviction.
of the statement but only its weight.
the result of tutoring by interested parties.
basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.
rule of prudence and not a rule of law.
state to make the declaration.
form the basis of conviction.
is not to be rejected.
the said declaration cannot be acted upon.
he should not be disbelieved by the Court.
declaration was questioned by the accused.
conviction. The aggrieved accused approached this Court.
the dying declaration, it ought to be accepted.
The conviction was accordingly upheld.
no reason to do anything which was not proper.
conviction recorded on that basis could not be faulted.
declaration was proper and could be relied upon.
as an obligation of oath could be.
corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.
appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
45.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants is upheld.