{"id":1958,"date":"2024-06-10T13:57:58","date_gmt":"2024-06-10T08:27:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1958"},"modified":"2024-06-10T13:57:58","modified_gmt":"2024-06-10T08:27:58","slug":"supreme-court-analyses-principles-governing-the-evidentiary-value-of-dying-declarations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-analyses-principles-governing-the-evidentiary-value-of-dying-declarations\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court analyses principles governing the evidentiary value of dying declarations"},"content":{"rendered":"

RAJENDRA S\/O RAMDAS KOLHE [<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)] Vs. <\/strong>STATE OF MAHARASHTRA\u00a0 [<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2281 OF 2011<\/p>\n

(2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and UJJAL BHUYAN JJ., delivered by UJJAL BHUYAN, J<\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter \u2018the High Court\u2019) dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2008, Rajendra Ramdas Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra<\/em><\/strong>, filed by the appellant thereby confirming the judgment and order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the 3rd Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai (\u2018trial court\u2019 hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 60\/2006.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the high court rightly dismissed appellant\u2019s appeal confirming judgement by ASJ?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. That apart, the High Court had rightly not relied upon Ex. 65 i.e. the dying declaration recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate as that was not proved. In so far dying declaration is concerned, he submits that PW-12, the doctor, had given the time of recording the dying declaration as 11:45PM, both as the starting point as well as the time of conclusion which is a significant lacuna. It casts a serious doubt about the credibility of the declaration. He submits that since the courts below had discarded the theory of domestic violence, there could be no other reason for the appellant to commit murder of his wife.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He submits that the evidence on record clearly establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant. Prosecution could successfully prove the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The dying declaration Ex. 59 is too significant to be overlooked. Minor discrepancies here and there cannot impeach the prosecution case. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction as affirmed by the High Court. The appeal should be dismissed.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court dismissed the present appeal and held that, \u201cthere is no reason for us to doubt the correctness of the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex. 59) which has been proved in evidence. Attending doctor has certified that the deceased was capable of narrating her statement. The substance of the dying declaration is also borne out by the medical history of the patient recorded by the doctor which has also been proved in evidence. Further, though there are inconsistencies and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses, there is however convergence with the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor. That being the position, the evidence on record, particularly Ex. 59, clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RAJENDRA S\/O RAMDAS KOLHE [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA\u00a0 [RESPONDENT(S)] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2281 OF 2011 (2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and UJJAL BHUYAN JJ., delivered by UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)   Facts: The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1960,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1958"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1958\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1961,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1958\/revisions\/1961"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1960"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}