The clothes of appellants were also seized.
On 21.8.2001, viscera and articles seized on the spot were sent to Chemical Analyser, whose report is Exhibit 15.
He went to the hospital at 7.00 p.m., met the medical officer in the hospital and thereafter he requested the medical officer to show the person to him.
The cause of death, according to the medical officer, was due to cardio respiratory failure due to superficial deep 66 burns.
The first dying declaration Exh.31 was recorded between 6 p.m. to 6 10 p.m. and the second dying declaration Exh.26 , which was recorded by Naib Tahsildar was between 7 15 to 7 30 p.m. on the same day i.e. 19.8.2001.
Bakshu by pouring kerosene on her person, set Rubina on fire.
The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and Dr. Bhagwan Pandit was examined as Court witness.
Parbhani, secured the MLC Certificate from the medical officer companycerning the deceased Rubina, which is at Exhibit 13.
After companypletion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
The letter in question was number produced by him.
That was number the case of the prosecution and, in fact, PW 3 accepted that the intimation was received at 6.30 p.m. and the dying declaration was recorded later by the Naib Tehsildar.
With reference to the Panchnama it appears that numberburn marks were found in the bed room on the other hand burn marks were found in the kitchen.
Bakshu about 8 days prior to the alleged incident, which took place on 19.8.2001 at about 4 p.m. in the house of the appellants.
Strangely, the dying declaration was recorded even before the intimation had reached i.e. at 6.10 p.m. There was a point raised about the number of marriages of the deceased.
Naib Tahsildar PW 1 , proceeded to the hospital.
The post mortem of the deceased was companyducted by Dr. Ashok Janapurkar PW 2 .
The charges in Exhibit 10 were framed and the appellants were tried before the Court, to which they pleaded number guilty and came to be tried.
So far as the dying declaration purported to have been recorded by Naib Tehsildar PW 1 is companycerned, he has stated that one companystable accompanied him in the hospital.
After ascertaining the physical and mental companydition of the patient from the medical officer, the Naib Tahsildar recorded statement of Rubina at 7 15 p.m. which is at Exhibit 26.
The seizure panchnamas are at Exhibits 42, 43 and 44.
All the appellants were arrested on 20.8.2001.
The post mortem report is at Exhibit 28.
PW 1 in his statement stated that on 19.8.2001, on the basis of a letter requiring him to record dying declaration of the person who was admitted to the hospital.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Divison Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
The medical officer Dr. Bhagwan endorsed on both the dying declarations to the effect that the patient was companyscious oriented in time and space and was able to make a statement.
While she was burning, her father in law extinguished the fire by pouring water on her.
Thereafter, the neighbours had brought the deceased to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani.
Interestingly, the mother of the deceased supported the defence version.
26 was claimed to have been recorded by the Naib Tehsildar PW 1 between 7.15 and 7.30 p.m. while Exh.31 was purported to have been recorded by the Police Officer PW 3 at 6.00 p.m. In the Exh.
Wahed, mother in law of the deceased caught hold of her and her husband, the appellant number1 Sk.
Radhakishan Katare PW 3 , who was working as ASI in Police Out Post in General Hospital.
As numbered above, Exh.30 shows that ASI had received intimation at 6.30 p.m. Dying declaration shows it was recorded between 6.00 to 6.10 p.m. If the intimation was received at 6.30 p.m. question of recording the dying declaration before that time does number arise.
Court witness Dr. Bhagwan Dhutmal was on duty and after examining the patient, he started treatment.
It has number been explained as to what was the necessity of a second dying declaration, if there was already a dying declaration in existence recorded by PW 3, who stated that he had accompanied PW 1.
According to Trial Court and High Court the basic question was who recorded the dying declaration first.
26, it was stated that the deceased did number know name of the mother in law and that the A 2 and A 3 were residents of Ramabai Nagar whereas the place where the alleged incident took place was Panchsheel road.
It was stated that the neighbour had taken deceased to hospital.
833 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
He did number say that police inspector PW 3, accompanied him though PW 3 claimed it to be so.
PW 3 in his evidence stated that he had accompanied Naib Tehsildar PW 1 .
He had drawn spot panchnama and recorded statements of witnesses.
The prosecution examined 6 witnesses.
After ascertaining from the medical officer regarding companysciousness of the patient to make a declaration, Radhakishan PW 3 recorded statement of the deceased on the same day i.e. 19.8.2001 at 6 p.m. The said dying declaration is at Exhibit 31.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
P.C. the appellants denied the incident in question and alleged that the witnesses were demanding money and for that reason, they are deposing falsely.
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as under Rubina hereinafter referred to as deceased was married to appellant No.1 Sk.
All the appellants were companyvicted by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.
According to the post mortem report, the deceased had suffered 67 burn injuries.
While the deceased was staying in the house of her in laws, the appellant No.2 Janubai Shakur, sister in law of the deceased and appellant No.3 Safirabi Sk.
214/2001.
The deceased died at 8 30 p.m. on 19.8.2001.
In their statement u s 313 of Cr.
The trial companyrt accepted this position to be companyrect from the record.
No.6002 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Police Officer PW 3 stated that intimation regarding occurrence was received at 6.30 p.m. vide Exh.30.
Thereafter, a letter was addressed to PW1 Naib Tahsildar for recording dying declaration of Rubina and on receipt of intimation, Narhari Pandit.
It is to be numbered that numbermark of burn injury was numbericed in the bed room and they were numbericed in the kitchen.
The case was companymitted by JMFC, Parbhani, to the Court of Sessions for trial.
But it made a new case that the time recorded to be 6.30 p.m. appears to be a mistake made by ASI.
Anil Gaikwad PW 6 companyducted the investigation of the case.
The deceased suffered burn injuries.
In viscera, numberpoison was detected.
Kerosene was detected on the clothes of accused, which were seized.
