In a significant legal battle, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the case of State vs. Rajendra s/o Ramdas Kolhe involving the tragic death of Lady Police Constable Dhokne. The court’s verdict underscored the reliability of dying declarations and affirmed the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This groundbreaking judgement serves as a testament to the pursuit of justice in our legal system.
Facts
- The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
- The High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment of conviction based on written and oral dying declarations of the deceased.
- The appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The trial court concluded that the prosecution could not prove harassment or cruelty under Section 498A IPC, but accepted the dying declarations and witness testimonies as evidence of homicide.
- The appellant had already served about nine years of his sentence by the time the Supreme Court took up the case.
- Lady police constable Dhokne was set on fire by her husband and brother-in-law.
- The incident took place on 22.07.2002 at about 08:30 PM.
- Her husband and brother-in-law incited the appellant about her character and not sharing her salary.
- Upon investigation, several items smelling of kerosene were seized from the crime scene.
- Dhokne’s hands were tied with a towel and her husband poured kerosene on her before setting her on fire.
- She was conscious with 99% burns when admitted to the hospital.
- Multiple witnesses confirmed that her husband and brother-in-law were present during the incident.
- Her dying declaration was recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate, revealing her husband and brother-in-law’s actions.
- The appellant and his in-laws were charged with various offenses including homicide.
Also Read: Karnataka Biotics vs. The Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction
Arguments
- The doctor, PW-12, stated that the dying declaration was recorded at 11:45PM, but did not specify the starting and ending time which is a significant gap.
- The High Court rightly did not rely on the dying declaration recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate (Ex. 65) as it was not adequately proved.
- The appellant took the deceased and her brother to the hospital which raises doubts about the credibility of the dying declaration.
- As the courts below rejected the theory of domestic violence, the appellant’s motive for committing murder is questionable.
- Evidence suggests that the appellant’s right hand was burnt while trying to save the deceased, contradicting the prosecution’s case.
- The respondent’s counsel supports the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
- He argues that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.
- The prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant.
- The dying declaration Ex. 59 is considered significant and cannot be overlooked.
- Based on the evidence presented, the conviction and sentence of the appellant should not be interfered with.
Also Read: Judicial Insight: Examining the Ruling in Hanna vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Analysis
- Rekha’s dying declaration clearly implicated her husband and brother-in-law in setting her on fire.
- The dying declaration was supported by the testimonies of witnesses PW-6, PW-12, and PW-13.
- Witness accounts highlighted instances of abuse and assault by the appellant and his family, leading up to the incident.
- Witness inconsistencies were addressed, with minor contradictions deemed natural.
- The prosecution presented improvements in evidence during cross-examinations, supporting the dying declaration.
- Key details from the dying declaration were validated through witness testimonies and medical records.
- The dying declaration was deemed credible, consistent, and free from tutoring, validating its reliability as evidence.
- The significance of dying declarations as per Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act was emphasized.
- Section 32 of the law states that statements made by a person who is deceased or unavailable are considered relevant facts.
- These statements are relevant regardless of whether the person was expecting death at the time of making the statement.
- The relevance of such statements applies to any proceedings where the cause of the person’s death is in question.
- Statements by individuals who are deceased or unable to provide evidence due to incapacity or unavailability are relevant when they relate to the cause of death.
- This includes statements about the circumstances leading to the person’s death.
- A dying declaration holds significant weight in court as the statement of a person on the verge of death is considered highly reliable.
- The general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible is relaxed in the case of a dying declaration.
- The credibility of a dying declaration depends on various factors such as the circumstances in which it was made, the competency of the authority recording it, and the absence of tutoring or prompting.
- Multiple dying declarations may exist in a case, and each must be assessed independently for evidentiary value.
- Inconsistencies between different dying declarations should be carefully examined by the court to determine their materiality.
- If a dying declaration is found to be true and voluntary, it can be the sole basis for conviction without the need for corroboration.
- The courts attribute intrinsic value of truthfulness to a dying declaration, especially when supported by other prosecution evidence.
- The impending death of the declarant is considered a guarantee of the truth of the statement regarding the circumstances leading to their death.
- Inconsistencies and improvements in the version of prosecution witnesses noted.
- Convergence with core narration of deceased in dying declaration and medical history recorded by doctor observed.
- After careful analysis of evidence, appellant found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
- Evidence on record, particularly Ex. 59, establishes guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
- Appellant has been on bail since 2016.
Also Read: National Highways Authority of India v. M/s. ITD Cementation India Limited
Decision
- The appellant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today to carry out his sentence.
- The appeal is dismissed.
Case Title: RAJENDRA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT (2024 INSC 422)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002281-002281 – 2011
