Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 4th February 2020
The State of Maharashtra vs Kailash Sahadu Somvanshi, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.720 OF 1999
Matter
The respondent- accused, Kailash Sahadu Somvanshi, was arrested on the grounds of criminal offence under Section 302, and 498-A, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sunita was married to Narayan Gunjal. The accused Kailash, husband of Narayan’s sister was held responsible for pouring kerosene on Sunita, and setting her on fire. It was held that Narayan and his sister had a dispute regarding the share in the property of their deceased father. Thus, the accused claimed that his in-laws had set Sunita on fire and tried to shift the blame on him. It was stated that the accused often forced Sunita to seek divorce from his husband because she could not conceive. Thus, once in the evening of 28th February, the accused after quarrelling with Sunita poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, after which Sunita poured water on her, and thereafter was taken to hospital by her mother-in-law and husband. Till then she had already suffered 70 percent burn injuries. In the Civil Hospital, Nashik, three different people recorded the dying declaration of Sunita. Interestingly, all the three dying declarations were different from each other, also the prosecution was unable to provide substantial evidence against the accused, Kailash. This led the Sessions Court Judge to believe that the dying declarations of Sunita were made by her under the pressure of her in-laws.
Appellant’s Contention
- The Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, has come to a decision upon hearing both the sides and scrutinizing the statements of the witness’s produced, and the dying declaration of Sunita, and other evidence. Thus, there is no error on part of the Sessions Court Judge.
Respondent’s Contention
- The accused, Kailash, stated that there was a dispute between him and Narayan, regarding the share of property between his (Kailash) wife and his brother, over his father-in-law’s property.
- The prosecution does not have substantial evidence against the accused.
- The dying declaration which was produced as an evidence cannot be considered as that the victim, Sunita, made different declarations during different times.
- The thirteen witnesses produced by the prosecution were not valid.
- Sunita’s death may be a result of suicidal action or an accidental death.
- Sunita might have been set on fire by her mother-in-law and husband, as Sunita’s mother had stated that 8 days before the incident took place, Sunita came to her mother’s house and while staying there had asked for a sum of Rs 5000 which was demanded by her husband. Unable to give the amount to her husband he along with his mother might have set her on fire.
Issues Raised
Dying declarations under Section 32(1), of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, states that a person who makes a statement regarding the cause of his death, the person responsible for his death, or any other clue regarding his/her death, at a time when he/she is nearing his/her death is considered as true.
However, the dying declaration made by Sunita was different all the three times, as recorded by three different officers. Thus, the main issue which arises here is that, ‘Can dying declaration of the person be treated as a substantial evidence to punish the accused.’
Held
- It was held that the Trial Court had examined the evidence provided by the accused in depth and that that the decision taken by the Trial Court was plausible in nature.
- It was held that Criminal Appeal NO.720 OF 1999, is dismissed, and that that any bail bonds, if any, against the Respondent or Accused stands cancelled.
- Also, the service provided by Advocate Mr. Ujwal R. Agandsurve, on behalf of the accused was appreciable, and thus the court quantified his fees at Rs 10,000, and additionally the expenses borne by him. The High Court Legal Services Authority was thus asked to pay him his fees within four weeks from the date of receiving the copy of this judgment.
Leave a Reply