Ashok Laxman Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan
D.K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2006-04-19
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s affirmation of the Sessions Judge’s verdict, convicting Gaikwad under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ashok Laxman Gaikwad

Respondents

State of Maharashtra

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nitin S. Tambwekar
• B.S. Sai
• K. Rajeev

Counsels for Respondents

• A.P. Mayee
• Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ashok Laxman Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra is a Supreme Court criminal appeal challenging a Bombay High Court judgment that convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC for killing by setting fire to his alleged lover. The record contains the dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by a Magistrate, and medical testimony indicating the declarant was conscious and capable of narrating events at the time of recording. The dying declaration describes a love affair between the deceased and Gaikwad, the deceased’s opposition to Gaikwad’s remarriage, and on the fatal night Gaikwad poured kerosene over her and set her ablaze with a burning match. The prosecution evidence, including the doctor’s testimony corroborating the declarant’s state of mind, is relied upon to establish Gaikwad’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt. The Bombay High Court’s Division Bench affirmed the Sessions Judge’s verdict, and the Supreme Court, upon examination of the evidence, found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s well-reasoned reasons. The Court concluded that the dying declaration and corroborating evidence support the conviction, and dismissed the appeal. The decision reiterates the admissibility and weight of properly recorded dying declarations when consistent with medical evidence, and upholds the standard of proof required for a conviction under IPC s. 302.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Dying declaration: admissibility and reliability when recorded by a Magistrate and when the declarant is conscious.
Beyond reasonable doubt as the standard of proof for criminal conviction.
Dying declarations can be relied upon when credibly supported by medical evidence and consistent with other evidence.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel argued through the entire record, challenging the weight and sufficiency of the dying declaration and the accompanying medical and circumstantial evidence. They urged careful scrutiny of the post-mortem and testimonial details, highlighting potential tensions in the sequence of events and the need to evaluate whether the dying declaration alone could sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the dying declaration, recorded by a magistrate in the declarant’s presence and corroborated by medical testimony, fits consistently with the earlier evidence and reliably establishes Gaikwad’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt. They maintained that the High Court’s reasons were cogent and properly affirmed by the Sessions Court’s verdict.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

) A # ASHOK LAXMAN GAIKWAD # _v._ ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA APRIL 19, 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] _Penal Code, 1860:_ _s. 302-Accused setting afire his beloved-Conviction by trial Court-_ C _Affirmed by High Court-Involvement of accused in the offence has been clearly proved beyond any doubt-There is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration and the other evidence tendered by prosecution-No case is made out for interference._ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 955 of D 2005. From the Judgment and Final Order dated 16.6.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Cr.A. No. 95 of 1998. Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai and K. Rajeev for the Appellant. E A.P. Mayee and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by ## ORDER This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the High Court ofBombay in Criminal Appeal No. 95of1988 dated 16th June, 2004 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/accused and thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took us through the entire evidence and the post mortem certificate and, in particular, the evidence of the doctor. We have carefully perused the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent. We have perused the dying declaration given by 71 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 SUPP. I S.C.R. 72 A the deceased on 25th January, 1987 at 22.30 p.m. It is seen from the remarks of the doctor that the patient, namely, the deceased was conscious and was in a position to give the statement recorded by the Magistrate. It is further seen from the above declaration that the deceased had love affair with the accused and that she opposed the accused marrying for the second time and B that the accused on the fateful date pourded kerosene on her person and with the help of burning match stick set fire on her, due to which she received the burn injuries. It is clear from the dying declaration that the accused poured kerosene on her person and with the help of burning match stick set fire on her. c c We have also perused the medical evidence given by Dr. Ramesh Namuaji Bhange (P. W.6). It is seen from the doctor's evidence that the deceased disclosed the history to the doctor that the accused poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire and that the judicial Magistrate has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. It is also seen from the doctor's evidence D that before her statement was recorded by the Sub-Judicial Magistrate he had examined her and found that she was conscious and in a position to give the statement. Accordingly, the doctor has signed the endorsement appearing on the dying declaration. He has also identified his signature on the dying declaration. In cross examination nothing contrary has been elicited to discredit the doctor's evidence. The doctor has also explained as to why he initially E recorded the word 'suicidal' on the first page of the case papers and when he found the initial statement was wrong, he extracts the word 'homicidal' on the first page of the case papers. I-le has also explained under that circumstance he has recorded the word 'suicidal'. The doctor also denied the suggestion made to him that the patient has not given him any history against the F accused and it is also not correct to say that the dying declaration was not recorded by the Sub-Judicial Magistrate in his presence. ,, We have also persued the other evidence tendered by the prosecution which in our view supports the case put forward by the prosecution. The learned judges of the Division Bench has considered the entire evidence G tendered on behalf of the prosecution in its proper perspective and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has clearly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons recorded by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court is cogent and convincing. The learned Judges have also affinned the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune for H the ample reasons recurded in their judgment. We have not been persuaded 73 ASHOKLAXMANGAIKWAD _v._ STATE OF MAHARASHTRA to take a different view than the one taken by the Division Bench of the High A Court. The involvement of the accused in the offence alleged has been clearly proved beyond any doubt. We have also no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration given by the deceased and the evidence tendered on the side of the prosecution. In our opinion, no case is made out for interference by this Court with the well considered judgment of the High court affirming the verdict of the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. RP. Appeal dismissed. I ..