Receivedon

:09/04/2012
Registeredon
:09/04/2012
Decidedon
:15/12/2015.
Duration

:3Y7M6D

INTHESESSIONSCOURT,PUNE.
(Before:Smt.L.L.Yenkar,DistrictJudge14and
AdditionalSessionsJudge,Pune.)
SESSIONSCASENO.197/2012

EXH.NO.

StateofMaharashtra
ThroughWanwadiPoliceStation.

|Complainant.
|

Versus
AnushreeSatishkumarKundra,
Age:39Years,Occ.:Service,
R/o.:25/7,WestPatelNagar,
NewDelhi110008.
AtpresentR/o.18/1,FirstFloor,
FirstCross,AshwiniLayout,
Bangalore.

|
|
|
|Accused.
|
|
|

Chargeundersections302and
307ofI.P.C.

=====================================
Smt.U.S.Pawar,D.G.P.fortheState.
Shri.S.M.ShahaandShri.Jathar,Advocatefortheaccused.
=====================================
JUDGMENT
(Deliveredon15thDecember,2015)
The accusedinthiscasewaschargedontwocountsnamely
section302oftheIndianPenalCodeformurderingJuhiAbhaynandan
Prasad and section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to
commitmurderofNimeshSinha.
2]Factsoftheprosecutioncase,inbrief,areasunder:

3]

NimeshSinhawasinitiallyworkinginGudgaon,Haryana.Anushree

Kundrawasalsoworkingwithhim.BothofthemwereatGudgaonforthe
purposeofservice. Theygotacquaintedwitheachotherandthere was
loveaffairbetweenthem. ThereaftertheyhadcometoPune. Nimesh
Sinha stayed at Pune and he was doing job at Cell Built Company,
Yerawada,PuneandhewasonthepostofManager. AnushreeKundra
hadgonetoBangaloreforservice.ShewasdoingjobinVibesCompanyat
Bangalore.
4]

AnushreewasmarriedwithSantoshChiknurandsheishavingone

son. However, due to dispute between Anushree and her husband, a

petition for divorce was filed by her husband Santosh and decree of
divorce had been passed on 782009. The custody of the son is with
husbandofAnushree.
5]

Intheyear2009,AnushreeandNimeshgotthejobatBodyandSoul

Company,Wanwadi,Pune.AnushreestartedtoresidewithNimeshSinha
atFlatNo.118,Parmar Garden, near Kedari petrol pump, Wanawadi,
Pune. NimeshandAnushreewerelivingtogetherinliveinrelationship
withtheconsentofeachother.Intheyear2010,Anushreeputproposalof
marriagewithNimeshSinha.NimeshSinhacalledhisparentsfromPatna.
The parents of Nimesh refused to accept the marriage proposal, as
AnushreebelongtoPunjabicasteandshewas12yearselderthanNimesh.
ThenNimeshandAnushreedecidednottocontinueliveinrelationship
andthenAnushreewenttoBangaloreintheyear2010.
6]

InthemonthofJune2011,NimeshSinhareceivedmarriage

S.C. No. 197/12.

proposalofJuhiPrasad,residentofDelhi.JuhiwasalsoknowntoNimesh
sincetheirschooldays.Loverelationsdevelopedbetweenthemandthey
decidedtomarrywitheachother.AsAnushreecametoknowaboutlove
affairbetweenNimeshandJuhiandabouttheirmarriageproposal,shegot
annoyed.
7]

Theincidentinquestionoccurredon13102011atabout9a.m.to

9.30 a.m. at Flat No.202, D Wing, New Market Plaza Society, Clover
Village,Wanawadi,Pune,whereNimeshwasresiding.
8]

Onedaypriortotheincidenti.e.on12102011,Anushreecameto

PuneatFlatofNimeshi.e.FlatNo.202,Dwing,NewMarketPlazaSociety,
Wanawadi,Pune. Since7102011,AnushreewasatPuneandshewas
insistingNimeshtoperformmarriagewithher.However,Nimeshrefused
forthesameandAnushree,therefore,wenttoBangaloreon10 thOctober.
SheagainreturnedtoPuneon12thOctober2011.
9]

On12102011,themotherofNimeshphonedtoJuhiandsheasked

Juhi to come to Pune stating that Anushree Kundra had come from
BangaloretotheflatofNimeshatPune. Juhiimmediatelystartedfrom
Delhi and she reached to Pune at about 5.30 p.m. She went to Flat
No.202,Dwing,NewMarketPlazaSociety,Wanawadi,Punei.e.theflatof
Nimesh. NimeshandAnushreebothwerethereintheflat. Therewas
discussion between Nimesh, Anushree and Juhi in respect of proposed
marriagebetweenNimeshandJuhi.TherewasquarrelbeweenJuhiand
Anushree.Lastly,AnushreehasgivenpermissionformarriageofNimesh
and Juhi and stated that she will not create any obstruction in their
marriage.Thesaiddiscussionwasgoingontill6a.m.on13102011.
10]

Thereafter,NimeshandJuhitoldAnushreethattheyaregoingto

sleepinthebedroomandtheyaskedhertosleepinanotherbedroom.
Anushreesaidthatshewillsitatthechairandwilltakerest.Sheasked,
nottoboltthedoorofthebedroomfrominside,whereNimeshandJuhi
weregoingtosleep. NimeshandJuhithen wenttothe bedroomfor
sleeping.Theyhavenotboltedthedoorfrominsideandtheysleptonone
bed.
11]

WhenNimeshandJuhiweresleeping,theyfeltsomesmellofpetrol.

Bothofthemgotup. JuhihadseenthatAnushreewashavingaplastic
bottlewithkerosene/petrolandshewassprinklingthesameonthebed
andonthebodyofNimeshandJuhi.Juhiaskedher,rq ;g D;k dj jgh gS.
Atthattime,Anushreesetfirebyburningmatchstick,whichwasinher
hand. Shewentoutofthebedroomandsheclosedthedoor. Juhigot
totally burnt and Nimesh also got burnt. This has happened in the
morningatabout9a.m.to9.30a.m.NimeshandJuhithenwenttobath
roomattachedtothebedroomandhadtakenshowerandextinguished
fire.Thereafter,thepersonsfromthesocietyhadcomeandtheyhadtaken
themoutoftheroombyopeningthedoor. NimeshandJuhiwerethen
takentothehospital.
12]

DyingdeclarationofJuhi,whohadsustained85%burninjuries,was

recordedon13102011.Onthebasisofdyingdeclaration,crimecameto
beregisteredagainstAnushreevidecrimeNo.237/11undersection307
of I.P.Code. As Juhidiedsubsequently on 22102011, section 302 of
IndianpenalCodecametobeadded.InjuredNimeshsurvived.
13]

OnthebasisofdyingdeclarationintheformofF.I.R.,investigation

wascarriedout. Panchnamaswere prepared. Statements of witnesses

wererecorded.Aftercompletionofinvestigation,chargesheetwasfiledin

S.C. No. 197/12.

the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Cantonment Court, Pune.

Subsequently,thecasecametobecommittedtotheCourtofSessions.
14]

AccusedAnushreeSatishkumarKundraappearedbeforetheCourtof

Sessions.Chargewasframedagainstherbymylearnedpredecessorvide
Exh.14 under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for having committed
murderofJuhiPrasadandundersection307ofIndianPenalCodefor
attemptingtocommitmurderofNimeshSinha.Statementofaccusedwas
recordedvideExh.15.Accusedpleadednotguiltytothechargeandshe
claimedtobetried.Herdefencewasthatoftotaldenial. Itisalsothe
specificdefenceoftheaccusedthatitisNimeshSinha,whohascommitted
offenceinordertoeliminateoneladyi.e.Juhiandtoimplicateanotheri.e.
Anushree.
15]

Accordingtotheaccused,shehasnotcommittedanyoffenceand

NimeshwasflirtingwithherandalsowithJuhiatthesametimeandhe
hasfalselyimplicatedherinthecommissionofoffence.
16]

Onthebasisofthesefacts,followingpointsarisefordetermination.

Ihaverecordedmyfindingsagainstthemforthereasonsstatedthereafter.
POINTS
1) Does prosecution prove that on 13102011 at
about 9.00a.m.to9.30a.m.atFlatNo.202,D
Wing, New Market Plaza Society, Clover village,
Wanawadi, Pune, the accused has committed
murder intentionally causing the death of Juhi
Abhaynandan Prasad by pouring petrol on her
personaswellasonherbedandbysettingher
ablazebymeansoflightenedmatchstick?

2) Doesprosecution provethatontheabovedate,
time and place and during the course of same

FINDINGS
Yes.

Yes.

transaction, accused committed act of pouring

petrolonthepersonofNimeshSinhaandthrew
lightenedmatchstickonhisbedonwhichhewas
sleeping with such intention and under such
circumstancesthatifbythatact,shehadcaused
thedeathofsaidNimeshSinha,shewouldhave
beenguiltyofmurderandcausedhurttoNimesh
Sinha?
3) Whatorder?

Asperfinalorder.
REASONS

PointNo.1and2:

17]

PointsNo.1and2areinterlinkedwitheachotherandrevolve

aroundthesameincidence.Thosearetherefore,preferredtobedecided
simultaneously.
Inordertoprovetheguiltoftheaccused,prosecution,inthe
instantcase, has examined fourteenwitnesses inall. Thoseareas
below:
1]

AnilAsharamBendreasP.W.1videExh.56,whowasworkingas

compounderatClovervillageSocietywithDr.SunilAnandandDr.Tanvi
Desai.
2]

Ashok Piraji Ghule as P.W.2 vide Exh.57, who was working as

watchmanatNewMarketPlaza,CloverVillageWanawadi.

3]

Machindra Kashinath Bhondve as P.W.3 vide Exh.59, who was

workingasManagerofCloverVilalge,NewMarketPlazaSociety,
Wanawadi.

4]

Dr.RashidNeehalKhanasP.W.4videExh.61,themedicalofficer,
whohasconductedpostmortem.

5]

S.C. No. 197/12.

Aparna Ashok Kaulgirkar as P.W.5 vide Exh.71 Executive

Magistrate,whohasrecordeddyingdeclarationofJuhi.

6]

Ravi Ramavatar Kanojiya as P.W.6 vide Exh.75, who is panch

witnessonseizurepanchnamaofclothesoftheaccused.

7]

Dr.MohinuddinFaruqueasP.W.7videExh.80,themedicalofficer,
who has examined Juhi Prasad before recording of her dying
declaration.

8]

NimeshRameshnandanprasadSinhaasP.W.8videExh.82,whois
eyewitnessoftheincidenceandwhoisinjured.

9]

Dr.AbhijitGopalDaragasP.W.9videExh.95,thedoctor,whohas
examinedthepatientJuhiPrasadon13102011beforerecording
herdyingdeclaration.

10]

Santosh Narayan Gawas as P.W.10 vide Exh.101, who is an

employeeofStandardCharteredBankatPune.

11]

AshokKisanraoPatilasP.W.11videExh.106,retiredPSI,whohas
recordeddyingdeclarationofJuhi.

12]

Dr.PravinBhimraoKambleasP.W.12videExh.115,themedical
officer of Sassoon Hospital, who examined Anushree Kundra
(accused)on15112011.

13]

BajiraoDadobaMohite,SeniorP.I.,asP.W.13videExh.119and

14]

Arun Dattatray Walture, ACP, Washim as P.W.14 vide Exh.136,

whoistheinvestigatingofficer.

18]

Before entering into the discussion about the evidence and

before touching to the merits of the matter, let us see what are the
admittedfactsinthiscase.
Factsadmittedbytheaccused:
i]

AccusedandinjuredeyewitnessNimeshSinhawerelivinginlive
inrelationshipandsince2009,theywereresidingtogether.

ii]

Anushree came to know about settlement of marriage between

NimeshandJuhiandsheleftPuneandwenttoBangalore.

iii]

From7102010AnushreecametoPuneandsheresidedwith
NimeshSinhatill10102010.ThensheagainwenttoBangalore
andreturnedtotheflatofNimeshon12102010.

iv]

On the date of incidence, Anushree was in the flat, where the

incidencehasoccurred.

v]

Onthedateofincidence,AnushreewenttoKedaripetrolpumpto
purchasepetrolandshereturnedbacktotheflatwithpetrol.

vi]

AfterkeepingbagsandbaggagesatthegateofNewMarketPlaza
Society,sheagainreturnedbacktotheflat.

vii]

Then Anushree went to Bombay to her sister's house and then

she wenttoDelhitoherparent'shouse.

viii]

InthefirstweekofNovember2011,shemetwithAdvocateTiger
Singh and then she filed bail petition at Delhi High Court and
obtained transit bail. Then she produced herself before the
CantonmentCourt,Pune.

ix]

Anushree had given history of burn injury to Dr. Kamble i.e.

S.C. No. 197/12.

P.W.12, when she was sent to Sassoon Hospital for medical

examinationafterherarrest.
Theaccusedhasadmittedfollowingdocuments:
i]

Arrestpanchnama,dated15112011.

ii]

Panchnamaaboutproductionofarticlesinpossessionofaccused
Exh.49.

iii]

Panchnamadated21112011regardingseizureofharddisk from
Kedaripetrolpump,whereinonthedateofincidence,Anushree
hadbeenshowntobethereatpetrolpumpforpurchasingpetrolin
theplasticbottle.

19]

Keeping in mind these admitted facts, touching to the

evidenceonrecord,attheoutset,ithastobenotedthattheprosecution
casemainlyrestsontwowrittendyingdeclarationsofJuhii.e.Exh.107
andExh.73.ThefirstdyingdeclarationofJuhiExh.107wasrecordedby
PSI Ashok Kisanrao Patil (P.W.11) on 13102011. Second dying
declaration Exh.73 was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Aparna
Kaulgirkari.e.P.W.5on13102011at11.40p.m.
20]

In dying declaration Exh.107, Juhi Prasad has stated the0

entire incident dated 13102011. She has stated that Nimesh and
Anushreewereknowingeachotherandshecametoknowthattherewas
loveaffair betweenNimeshandAnushree. Juhihasspecificallystated
thathermarriagewasfixedwithNimeshandAushreegotannoyedand
she,therefore,attemptedtocommithermurderandmurderofNimeshby
sprinklingkerosene/petrolontheirbed,wheretheyweresleepingandon
theirpersonandbysettingthemablazebymeansoflightedmatchstick.

10

21]

InthedyingdeclarationExh.73recordedsubsequentlyalso,

she has stated about the incidence dated 13102011 happened in the
morning at 9 to 9.30 a.m. In the said dying declaration, she has
specificallystatedthatshehascomplaintagainstAnushreeKundraabout
theincidence.
22]

Taking assistance of various authorities, much has been

arguedonbehalfoftheaccusedbyAdvocateShri.S.M.Shaha, onthese
twodyingdeclarationsinordertoshowthatthesaiddyingdeclarationsdo
notstandthetestofreliability.
23]

Onbehalfoftheprosecution,learnedD.G.P.Smt.U.S.Pawar

also tried her level best to convince the Court that the said two dying
declarationscoupledwithotherevidenceonrecord,aresufficienttoprove
the guilt of the accused. She has also submitted written notes of
argumentsvideExh.166.
24]

SofarasthefirstdyingdeclarationExh.107isconcerned,the

contentionsraisedonbehalfoftheaccusedarethat:
i]

It is a tutored statement of Juhi, as P.W.8 Nimesh Sinha was

consistently saying that Anushree has set us on fire with
intentiontoputthesewordsintheearandbrainofJuhi.

ii]

ScribeofExh.107isnotexaminedbyprosecution.

iii]

Nameofthescribeisbroughtonrecordbywayofimprovement.

iv]

Noexplanationisgivenbytheprosecutionfornonexaminationof
scribe.

11

v]

S.C. No. 197/12.

TherearecontradictionsbetweenthecontentsofEmailExh.90
sent by Juhi to Nimesh on 8102011 and contents of dying
declarationofJuhiExh.107dated13102011.

vi]

25]

Dyingdeclarationisnotrecordedinthelanguageofthedeponent.

Shri. S.M. Shaha, learned counsel for the accused while

arguinginthisregard,hasplacedhisrelianceonthefollowingcases:
1}

Govind Narain and another Vs. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1993

SupremeCourt2457,

2}

KansRajVs.StateofPunjabandothers,AIR2000SupremeCourt
2324(1),

3}

MilindRamchandraGharatVs.StateofMaharashtra&Anr.,2015
ALLMR(Cri.)2377,

4}

PravinPandurangPatilVs.StateofMaharashtra&Ors.,2015(2)
Bom.CR(Cri.)586,

5}

LatabaiDinkarSonawaneVs.StateofMaharashtra,2014ALLMR
(Cri.)3440,

6}

DattaTukaramMalwadVs.StateofMaharashtra,2014ALLMR
(Cri.)3967,

7}

ManoharDadaraoLandgeVs.StateofMaharashtra,2000(2)Mh.
L.J.3,

8}

State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivaji Narayan Suryavanshi &

Anr.,1997ALLMR342,

9}

JanabaiRanuPatole&Anr.Vs.SateofMaharashtra,1997ALL
MR(Cri.)1157,

10}

DeepakBaliramBajaj&Anr.Vs.StateofMaharashtra,1993Cri.
L.J.3269,

11}

Kake Singh @ Surendra Singh Vs. State of M.P.,AIR 1982

SupremeCourt1021,

12

12}

Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors. Vs. State of A.P.,AIR 1999

SupremeCourt3455,

13}

DanduLakshmiReddyVs.State,1999ALLMR(Cri.)1784(S.C.),

14}

ManikVanajiGawali Vs.StateofMaharashtra,2013(2)Bom.
C.R.(Cri.)468,

26]

It is submitted by Advocate Shri. Shaha on behalf of the

accusedthatthedyingdeclarationExh.107i.e.thefirstversionofJuhihas
tobereadwithendorsementExh.96thereon,whichshowsthatitwasput
after recording of statement is over. Pointing out to the endorsements
Exh.96 and 97, it is submitted by Advocate Shri. Shaha that both the
endorsements state the same date and the same time. Looking to the
endorsements Exh.96 and 97, it appears that wording of both
endorsementsarethesameandthedateputbelowtheendorsementsis
13102011andthetimeputbelowtheendorsementsis10.15p.m.The
wordingusedintheendorsementsisthatJuhiPrasad,caseofburns,has
giventhisstatementtopoliceinmypresence.Patientwasconsciouswhile
givingstatement.Theargumentinthisregardadvancedonbehalfofthe
accusedthatboththeendorsementsarewiththesamewording,whichare
signed by Dr. Abhijit Darag (P.W.9) and with the same date and time
thereforehastobeaccepted.However,atthesametime,theevidenceof
Dr.AbhijitDaragonoathbeforetheCourt,whoputthoseendorsements
alsohastobetakenintoconsiderationwhilescrutinizingthedocument
Exh.107.
27]

Dr.AbhijitDarag(P.W.9)inhisevidenceExh.95hasstatedthat

hewascheckingthepatientJuhifrequently.Hewasthereonlythroughout
theday.After8p.m.,thepatientwasconsciousandshewasabletotalk.

13

S.C. No. 197/12.

Thiswitnesshasstatedspecificallythatpolicerecordedthestatementof
thepatientinhispresenceandtherecordingofstatementwascompleted
atabout10.30p.m.Thereafterheputhisendorsementsonthestatement
in his own handwriting and put his signature. It has also been stated
specificallybythiswitnessthathesignedtheendorsementsExh.96and97
atthesametimeandheputthetimei.e.10.15p.m.
28]

Here,itismaterialtonotethattheaspectofputtingthesame

time on both the endorsements has been clarified by the witness, on

question put to him by learned D.G.P. Smt. Pawar by stating that PSI
MohiteofWanawadipolicestationhadbeentohimandaskedhimasto
whether the patient is conscious and he put endorsement Exh.96 i.e.
beforerecordingthestatementofthepatient. Itcan,therefore,besaid
thatendorsementExh.96isputbeforerecordingstatementandExh.96is
putafterrecordingstatement.Itcan,therefore,besaidthatendorsement
Exh.96isputbeforerecordingstatementandendorsementExh.97isput
afterrecordingofstatements.
29]

Inthiscontext,learnedD.G.P.hasplacedherrelianceonthe

followingcases:
1}

LaxmanVs.Stateof
2973(1),

Maharashtra,AIR 2002 Supreme Court

2}

RamaKrushnaRoyVs.StateofOrissa,2014ALLMR(Cri)5196
(S.C.),

3}

OmPalSinghVs.StateofU.P.,AIR2011SupremeCourt1562,

4}

KesavaPillaiKunjanPillaiVs.State,1952Cri.L.J.386,

5}

Atbir Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, AIR 2010 Supreme

Court3477,

6}

StateofUttarPradeshVs.RamSagarYadav,1985AIR(SC)416,

14

7}

MunnuRajaVs.StateofMadhyaPradesh,1976AIR(SC)2199,

8}

DharamPalVs.StateofPunjab,AIR1992SupreeCourt1852,

9}

BalbirSingh andAnr.Vs.stateofPunjabAIR2006Supreme
Court3221,

10}

RamawatiDeviVs.Stateof Punjab, AIR 1983 Supreme Court

164(1),

11}

StateofU.P.Vs.ChetRamandothers,AIR1989SupremeCourt
1543,

12}

Rameshs/o.BisanPartekiVs.TheStateofMaharashtra,2001
Cri.L.J.3780,

13}

GuddaaliasSultanSinghandAnr.Vs. StateofM.P.,2012Cri.
L.J.3411,

14}

HarjitKaurVs.StateofPunjab,AIR1999SupremeCourt2571,

15}

Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and others,AIR 1998

SupremeCourt1850(1),

16}

StateofKarnatakaVs.Shariff,AIR2003SupremeCourt1074,

17}

Tejrams/o.UkandraoPatilVs.StateofMaharashtra,2008(4)
Mh.L.J.(Cri.)695,

18]

Sherkhan s/o. Mirbajkhan Pathan Vs. The State of

Maharashtra,2015ALLMR(Cri.)3429.

30]

InthecaseofSherKhanVs.StateofMaharashtra(supra),it

isheldbytheHon'bleHighCourtthatifthepresenceofaccusedonthe
spotatthetimeofincidenceisnotdisputed,dyingdeclarationofdeceased
implicating the accused for said crime has to be relied upon. In this
regard,learnedD.G.P.hassubmittedinherargumentthatthedocument
Exh.107isFIRintheformofdyingdeclarationanditissupportedand
corroborated by the evidence of P.W.11 Ashok Patil. Looking to the
evidenceofretiredPSIAshokPatil,ithastobenotedthatasperhis
evidence,atabout8p.m.,thedoctorofI.C.U.wardofInamdarHospital

15

S.C. No. 197/12.

cameoutandtoldthatJuhiisconsciousandhecantakeherstatement.
Hehimself,PSIBajiraoDadobaMohiteandthedoctorwenttothebedof
Juhi.HerequestedthedoctortoexamineJuhiandgivecertificateabout
herconsciousness. ThedoctorhasexaminedJuhiandputendorsement
Exh.96onthepapertothateffect.
31]

Thiswitnessinhisevidencehasalsostatedspecificallyabout

theentirenarrationofJuhiabouttheincidence.Hehasfurtherstatedthat
after completion of statement at about 10.15 p.m., he obtained
endorsementofthedoctoronsecondpageofthedocumentanddoctorput
an endorsement Exh.97 and then put his signature. He read over the
contents of the statement to Juhi and as both the hands of Juhi were
burnt, he obtained the impression of toe of right leg of Juhi on the
statementandhealsoputhissignature.Theprosecutionhasprovedthe
first dying declaration of Juhi Exh.107 by examining this witness i.e.
P.W.11AshokPatil.
32]

TheevidenceofP.W.11clarifiesthatendorsementExh.96was

put by the doctor before recording the statement of Juhi and the
endorsement Exh.97 was put after completion of recording of her
statement.ThesaidevidencecorroborateswiththeevidenceofP.W.9Dr.
Abhijit Darag, who put endorsements Exh.96 and 97 and argument
advanced on behalf of the accused raising doubt about the dying
declarationExh.107,therefore,doesnotfindanypalce.
33]

Moreover,thejuristictheoryregardingacceptabilityofdying

declarationisthatsuchdeclarationismadewithextremitywhentheparty
isatthepointofdeathandwheneveryhopeofthisworldisgone,when
everymotivetofalsehoodissilencedandthemanisinducedbythemost

16

powerfulconsiderationtospeakonlythetruth.
34]

Ashasbeenheldbythe Hon'bleApexCourtin thecaseof

LaxmanVs.StateofMaharashtra(supra):
EvidenceAct(1of1872),S.32Dyingdeclaration
Recording ofAbsenceofcertificationofdoctorastofitness
ofmindof declarantWouldnotrenderdyingdeclaration
notacceptableWhatisessentiallyrequiredisthatperson
whorecordsitmustbesatisfiedthatdeceasedwasinfitstate
ofmindCertificationbydoctorisruleofcautionThus
voluntaryandtruthfulnatureofdeclarationcanbe
establishedotherwise.

35]

In the case of Rama Vs.StateofOrissa (supra), and in a

seriesofauthorities,itisheldthatabsenceofendorsementbydoctoron
declarationisnotmaterial. Inthepresentcase,thedeclarant/deponent
i.e.Juhiwas85%burntandshewasunderexpectationofdeathandthere
wasnoreasonforhertotellalie.
36]

So far as the dying declaration Exh.107 is concerned,

AdvocateShri.Shaha fortheaccusedplacedhisrelianceonthecaseof
GovindNarainVs.StateofRajasthan, KansRaj Vs.StateofPunjab,
PravinVs.StateofMaharashtra and LatabaiVs.StateofMaharashtra
(supra) and has submitted that non examination of scribe of dying
declarationExh.107fatalstothecaseofprosecution. Thenameofthe
scribe is disclosed for the first time by witness P.W.13 PSI Bajirao
Mohite by way of improvement, and the said Dying Declaration is not
reliableanddoesnotstandtothereason.
37]

True,itisthatinthecaseinhand,thoughaspertheevidence

ofP.W.13BajiraoMohite,PSIAshokPatilhasrecordedthestatementof

17

S.C. No. 197/12.

Juhianditwasreducedintowritingbythewriter/scribeconstableShri.
Naik,thesaidwriter/scribehasnotbeenexaminedbytheprosecution.In
viewofthis,ithastobeseenastowhatistheeffectofnonexaminationof
scribeontheprosecutioncase.
38]

In this regard, the learned D.G.P. Smt. Pawar again placing

relianceonthecaseof LaxmanVs.StateofMaharashtra,hassubmitted
thatinthepresentcase,therearetwodyingdeclarationsandscribeof
dyingdeclarationExh.73hasbeenexaminedbyprosecutionandthebasic
requirementbeingthattheperson,whorecordsdyingdeclaration,mustbe
satisfiedthatthedeceasedwasinafitstateofmind,nonexaminationof
scribedoesnotaffecttheprosecutioncaseinanyway.D.G.P.Smt.Pawar
has further submitted that this authority is not yet overruled and it
definitely assists the prosecution case in all respects so far as dying
declarationsareconcerned.
39]

InviewoftheobservationoftheHon'bleApexCourtinthe

case of Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, the argument advanced on

behalf of the prosecution seems to be quite convincing and acceptable
causingmetostatethatnonexaminationofscribeinthepresentcasedoes
notfataltheprosecutioncaseanditdoesnotassisttheaccusedinanyway.
40]

To all other contentions and questions raised by Advocate

Shri.Shahaonbehalfoftheaccused,suchasdyingdeclarationwasnot
recordedinquestionanswerform,itwasnotrecordedinthelanguageof
deponent etc. and question about credibility and truthfulness of dying
declarationofdeceasedJuhiinthiscase,thecaseofLaxmanVs.Stateof
Maharashtra,istheclearanswerwhereinitismadeclearastowhatare
essentialrequirementstorenderdyingdeclarationsacceptableandwhat

18

arethemererulesofcaution.
41]

InthecaseofPravinVs.StateofMaharashtrarelieduponby

theaccusedherself,itisstatedthatcertificationfromthedoctorthatThe
patientisfittogivestatementisnotaprecondition.However,thescribe
must himself be satisfied about the patient being able to give the
statement. That is a dictum of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
ApexCourtinthecaseofLaxmanVs.StateofMaharashtra.
42]

In the present case, dying declaration Exh.107 has been

establishedtobevoluntaryandtruthfulbywayofevidenceofP.W.13
BajiraoMohiteandevidenceofP.W.9Dr.AbhijitDaragandithastobe
reliedupon.
43]

Now,comingtotheseconddyingdeclarationExh.73recorded

byExecutiveMagistrateAparanKaulgirkar(P.W.5)on13102011,ithasto
benotedthataspertheevidenceofthiswitness,thedoctorhasexamined
thepatientJuhiPrasadandissuedcertificateExh.72.Thensherecorded
thestatementofJuhiasperhersay.Afterfinishingthestatement,doctor
hasexaminedthepatientandputanendorsementthatthepatientwas
fullyconscious.ShereadoverthecontentstoJuhiinHindilanguageand
Juhiadmittedthesametobetrueandcorrectandthentheimpressionof
toeofrightlegofJuhiwasobtained.
44]

The prosecution by examining Dr. Faruque (P.W.7) vide

Exh.80,whohasexaminedJuhi,hasprovedtheendorsement/certificate
Exh.72. Inthisregardalso,itissubmittedbyAdvocateShri.Shahaon
behalfoftheaccusedthatendorsementisnotputbythedoctoronthe
dying declaration Exh.73 itself and the certificate Exh.72 given on a
separate page cannot be taken into consideration. However, this

19

S.C. No. 197/12.

submission on behalf of the accused also cannot be accepted as the

certificateExh.72isgivenbyDr.FarqueclearlystatingthatJuhiPrasad
admittedwithallegedhistoryofburn.Sheisconsciousandabletotalk
andsheisinaconditiontogivestatement.Thiscertificate,therefore,can
safelybereliedupon.Aftercompletionofstatement,Dr.Faruquehasput
hisendorsementonExh.73itselfstatingthatwhilegivingstatement,the
patientwasfullyconscious.
45]

Thus,the dyingdeclarationExh.73hasbeenprovedbythe

prosecutionbyexaminingscribeitselfandbyexaminingthedoctor,who
issuedcertificateandputanendorsementaboutconsciousnessandfitness
ofthepatienttogivethestatement.Thisbeingso,thereisnoscopefor
theaccusedtoraisecontentionaboutnonexaminationofscribethereby
affectingthecredibilityofthedyingdeclaration. Inregardtothedying
declarationExh.73,AdvocateShri.Shahaonbehalfoftheaccused,has
triedtoimpeachitscredibilityonthegroundthattherequisitionletter
Exh.74 and dying declaration Exh.73 do not tally and the said dying
declaration was recorded in Marathi, though Juhi was not knowing
Marathi.
46]

However, looking to the requisition letter Exh.74 and

documentExh.73,itappearsthattherequisitionletterwassentbyAPI
Wanawadi police station to the Executive Magistrate Smt. Aparna
KaulgirkaraskinghertorecordthestatementofburnpatientnamelyJuhi
AbhaynandanPrasad. Thesaidletterwassenton13102011andthere
seemsnoinconsistencyinExh.73and74.
47]

Sofarasthe language ofrecordingof statementof Juhiis

concerned,ithastobenotedthataspertheevidenceofP.W.5Aparna

20

Kaulgirkar,shehasreadoverthecontentsofthestatementtoJuhiinHindi
languageandJuhiadmittedthecontentsofthestatementtobetrueand
correct. In view of this specific evidence of P.W.5, there seems no
substanceinthecontentionsraisedonbehalfoftheaccusedinrespectof
the credibility and reliability of the dying declaration Exh.73. The
authorityMilindVs.StateofMaharashtrarelieduponbytheaccusedalso
doesnot assist her, there beingnovariance or discrepancyin both the
dying declarations i.e. dying declarations Exh.107 and Exh.73 and the
contentsbeingexplainedtothedeponentinthelanguageknowntoher.
Inviewofthis,noscoperemaintoquestionthereliabilityortruthfulness
ofboththedyingdeclarationsofJuhiPrasad.
48]

Having discussed about the contentions raised about

credibilityandreliabilityofthedyingdeclarationsraisedonbehalfofthe
accused,againcomingbacktothecontentsofthedyingdeclarations,itis
material to note that dying declarations speak in clear words that the
accusedAnushreehadpouredkerosene/petrolonthepersonofJuhiand
NimeshandsetthemonfireultimatelyresultinginthedeathofJuhiand
sustaining injuries to Nimesh. As such, there is no escape from the
conclusion that the deceased Juhi gave the statement while she was
conscious and in a fit state of mind showing guilt on the part of the
accusedAnushree.
49]

Inordertopassthetestofreliability,dyingdeclarationhasto

be subjected to a very close scrutiny keeping in view the fact that the
statement has been made in absence of the accused, who had no
opportunityoftestingveracityofthestatementbycrossexamination.But
oncetheCourthascometotheconclusionthatthedyingdeclarationwas
truthfulversionastothecircumstancesofdeathandcauseofdeath,there

21

S.C. No. 197/12.

isnoquestionoffurthercorroboration.
50]

TheobservationoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseof

Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, make it implicitly clear that before

placingrelianceonthedyingdeclaration,theCourtmustbesatisfiedthat
the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring,
promptingoraproductofimaginationanddeceasedwasinafitstateof
mind.Intheinstantcase,accordingtotheaccused,thedyingdeclaration
of Juhi is the result of tutoring by Nimesh Sinha, who was repeatedly
statingthatAnushreehassetthemonfire. However,Iamnotreadyto
accept this contention, for the reason that Juhi in her both dying
declarationshasspecificallystatedastowhathashappenedandshebeing
aneyewitnesstotheincident,herdyingdeclarationcannotbesaidtobe
theresultoftutoringorpromptingetc.
51]

Havingdiscussedaboutthedyingdeclarations,thevitalpiece

ofevidence,comingtotheotherevidenceonrecord,ithastobenoted
thattheevidenceofinjuredeyewitnessNimeshSinha(P.W.8)alsoplays
significantrole.
52]

AspertheevidenceofNimeshSinha(P.W.8),hewasworking

inAmericanExpressCompanyatGudgaonintheyear2006. Anushree
wasalsoworkingthereandhewasknowinghersince2006.Intheyear
2009,hehadcometoPuneandatthesametime,Anushreehadalsocome
toPune.BothofthemhadcometoPuneforjob.HewasworkinginCell
Built Company at Yerawada since October 2009 and Anushree was
workingwithBodyandSoulCompanyatWanawadi,Pune.Atthattime,
hewasresidingatFlatNo.118,ParmarGarden,Wanawadi.Anushreewas
residinginthesameflat.HehimselfandAnushreewerelivingtogetherin

22

live in relationship. There were sexual relationship between him and

Anushreewithconsentofeachother.Intheyear2010,Anushreeshifted
toBangalore.ShewasdoingjobatBangaloreinVibesCompany.Before
going to Bangalore in 2010, Anushree put a proposal before him for
marriage. Hecalledhisparents.ButasAnushreebelongedtoanother
castei.e.Punjabiandsheisofelderage,hisparentsdidnotlikehimto
marry with Anushree. As his parents were not ready, he himself and
AnushreedecidednottocontinueliveinrelationshipandthenAnushree
wenttoBangaloreintheyear2010.
53]

Tosumupthestory,itcanbesaidinshortthatNimeshand

Anushree were staying together in Flat No. 118, Parmar Garden,

Wanawadi,Pune,since2009andtheywerelivinginliveinrelationship.
TherewassexualrelationshipbetweenNimeshandAnushreewithconsent
ofeachother.BeforegoingtoBangalorein2010,Anushreemadeproposal
ofmarriage,buttheparentsofNimeshwerenotreadyasAnushreewasa
divorceebelongingtoothercasteandelderthanNimesh.Asparentsof
NimeshwerenotreadyforhismarriagewithAnushree,theyhavedecided
nottocontinueliveinrelationshipandthenAnushreewenttoBangalore
intheyear2010. Nimeshinhisevidencehasstatedindetailaboutthe
incidenceof13102011.
54]

Nimesh and Juhi were classmates and they were knowing

each other since 10th standard and marriage proposal about Juhi was
receivedsomewhereinJune2011.AnushreemetNimeshatPuneatthe
timeofHoliof2011.Thenshehadcomeonedaybeforetheincidenti.e.
on 12102011 and the entire episode/incident has occurred on 1310
2011atabout9to9.30a.m.

23

55]

S.C. No. 197/12.

So far as this evidence of Nimesh, more particularly the

evidence about happening of incidence is concerned, there appear

corroborationinhisevidenceandthedyingdeclarationsofJuhi.Thereis
nomaterialdiscrepancyinthestatementofNimeshandinthestatement
ofJuhiclearlyindicatingthatAnushreehaspouredkerosene/petroland
setthemablazeetc.
56]

InregardtotheevidenceofinjuredwitnessNimesh,Advocate

Shri.Shahaplacinghisrelianceonthecaseof StateofMaharashtraVs.
Balram, 1997 ALL MR (Cri.) 327 and Narayan Kanu Vs. State of
Maharashtra,1997ALLMR(Cri.)448,hassubmittedinthecourseofhis
argumentthatevidenceofNimeshcannotberelieduponashehimselfis
behindthecommissionofoffenceandhisevidenceisnottrustworthyand
doesnotstandtothetestofreason.
57]

IncaseofStateofMaharashtraVs.Balram,itisheldbythe

Hon'bleHighCourtthat:
BeforeevidenceofinjuredwitnesscanbeacceptedbyCourt,
itshouldbesatisfiedthatsaidwitnessistruthfulwitnessand
accountgivenisintunewithprobabilities.

58]

Ashasbeenheldbythe Hon'bleHighCourtinthecaseof

Narayan Vs.StateofMaharashtra,evidenceofinjuredwitnessshould
notbemechanicallyacceptedasagospeltruthandwhileappreciatingthe
same,ithastobeseenwhetheritinspiresconfidence.
59]

However,asstatedabove,theevidenceofNimeshisconsistent

withthestatements/dyingdeclarationsofJuhiExh.107and73andhis
evidencedefinitelyinspiresconfidence.

24

60]

Now let us see, whether the evidence of other relevant

witnesses,whoareacquaintedwiththeincidencedated13102011and
who are acquainted with the facts of the matter are supporting the
evidenceofNimeshornot.
61]

In context with the incidence, the evidence of P.W.1 Anil

Bendre,whowasworkingascompounderatCloverVillageSocietywith
Dr.SunilAnandandDr.TanviDesai,theevidenceofP.W.2AshokGhule,
who was working as watchman at New Market Plaza, Clover Village
Wanawadi and the evidence of P.W.3 Machindra Bhondve, who was
working as Manager at Clover Village, New Market Plaza, Wanawadi,
needstobeconsidered.
62]

P.W.1hasstatedinhisevidencethatincidencehasoccurredon

13102011.Onthatday,asusual,hereachedtohisclinicat9.15a.m.
andhewastalkingwithMachhindraBhondve,GhuleandSayyad. They
werestandingnearthewatchman'scabin.Atthattime,theysawsmoke
oozingfromthewindowofflatsituateonsecondfloorofDWing. He
himself and electrician Sayyad rushed to second floor and Machhindra
madephonecalltofirebrigade.TheywenttosecondfloorinFlatNo.202.
Theyhadseenthattherewasfireintheflat.So,theyobtainedwaterform
theflatofShri.Bhattacharyaandtriedtoextinguishthefire.Therewas
fireinsidethebedroom,soheaskedastowhoisinside.Thattime,one
personalongwithonewomancameoutoftheflat. Boththehandsof
malepersonwereburntandtheladywastotallyburnt.Theladystated
thatAnushreeKundrapouredpetrolontheirperson,setthemonfireand
wentaway.
63]

This witness has further stated that prior to the incidence,

25

S.C. No. 197/12.

when they were standing near watchman's cabin/gate, he had seen

Anushreegoingoutofthesociety.Thattime,Machhindraaskedherthat
herflathascaughtfireonwhich,shehasstatedthatneighbouringhouse
caughtfireanditisnotherflatandthenshetookrickshaw,putherbags
inrickshawandwentaway.
64]

P.W.2inhisevidencehasstatedthaton13102011,whenhe

himself,Sayyad,AnilBendreandMachhindraBhondvewerestanding,he
sawonewomancomingwithbag.Shekeptbagnearthegate.Shetold
thatshewillcomebackaftersometimeandshewentbacktotheupper
floor.Thensheaskedhimtocallautorickshaw.Sheputthebaginauto
rickshawandwentaway.Hehadseensmokecomingoutfromtheflatat
second floor of D Wing and then Anil Bendre and Machhindra rushed
towardsthespot.ThiswitnesshasidentifiedAnushreebeforetheCourt.
65]

P.W.3MachhindraBhondvehasstatedthaton13102011at

about9a.m.,whenhewasenteringthegateofsociety,hehadseenone
ladycomingdownfromthefloorofthesocietyandshewasbringingtwo
bags. Theladywaswearinglightgreencolouredtopandbluecoloured
Jeanspant.HehasfurtherstatedthathesawthewatchmanAshokGhule
standingnearthegateandtwobagswerekeptnearthegate.Onasking
about the bags, he told that the bags are of the lady occupant of Flat
No.202andhealsotoldthattheladyaskedhimtocallautorickshaw.It
has further been stated by this witness that when he himself, Sayyad,
GhuleandAnilBendreweretalkingwitheachother,theyheardasound
likeFattakandsotheyreturnedandtheyhadseensmokecomingout
fromsecondfloorofDWing.Thattime,hesawalady,whohadkeptthe
bagsnearthegatehastilycomingdown.Hesaidthatherflathascaught
fire. Sherepliedthatherflathasnotcaughtfire,butitisneighbouring

26

house. This witness has also identified the accused Anushree present
beforetheCourt.
66]

Evidence of these three witnesses together make one thing

clearthaton13102011,FlatNo.202onsecondfloorofDWingcaught
fire. Onemalei.e.Nimeshandoneladyi.e.Juhiwerefoundburntand
firewasextinguishedbywater.AspertheevidenceofP.W.1,priortothe
incident, when they were standing near the watchman's cabin/gate, he
hadseenthelady(Anushree)goingoutofthesociety.WhenMachhindra
toldherthatherflathascaughtfire,shehasstatedthattheneighbouring
housecaughtfireanditisnotherflatandthenshecalledautorickshaw,
putherbagsinautorickshawandthenwentaway.
67]

All these three witnesses have identified the said lady i.e.

AnushreebeforetheCourt.TheevidenceofP.W.1,P.W.2andP.W.3goesto
showthaton13102011,AnushreewasthereinFlatNo.202onsecond
floor and she has come with the bags, kept the bags near the gate of
society,askedthewatchmanP.W.3tocallrickshawandshewentawaywith
herbagsbyautorickshaw. Theevidencealsoclearlyshowsthatwhen
Anushreewasleavingthesociety,FlatNo.202hadcaughtfireandinspite
oftellingthisfacttoherbyP.W.1andP.W.3,shetoldthatitisnotherflat,
buttheflatofneighbourer,whichcaughtfireandshewentaway.Itisthe
specific evidence of P.W.3 that he had seen the lady Anushree hastily
comingdown. Thus,itrevealsfromtheevidencethatwhenallpersons
wererushingtowardstheflat,whichcaughtfire,Anushreewasleavingthe
societywithbagsandbaggages.ThisconductofAnushreeisstrangeand
inconsistentwithnormalhumanbehaviour.
68]

The above discussed circumstances definitely point finger

27

S.C. No. 197/12.

towards Anushree and are sufficient to draw an inference that it is

Anushreeonly,whowasresponsibleforcatchingfiretoflatNo.202.The
conductofaccusedAnushreebothpreviousandsubsequenttotheincident
isveryimportantinthepresentcase.HercomingdownhastilyfromFlat
No.202 of second floor with bags, calling for auto rickshaw and going
awaybyautorickshawmoreparticularlyinthecircumstancesthatFlat
No.202caughtfire,definitelygotoshowthatherinvolvementistherein
the commission of offence. Even accepting for a moment that
neighbouringflatcaughtfire,itisnotexpectedfromamanofordinary
prudencethathewillgoawayimmediately.
69]

Theabovesaidthreewitnessesexaminedbytheprosecution

areindependentwitnesses,whohadseensmokecomingoutfromDWing,
whohadseenthatFlatNo.202caughtfireandwhohadseenaladyi.e.
Anushree going out with her bags by auto rickshaw at the same time
knowing well that the flat caught fire and the said evidence has to be
believedandaccepted.Moreover,inthepresentcase,presenceofaccused
onthespotofincidenceatthetimeofincidenceisnotdisputed. This
beingso,eventheevidenceofP.W.1toP.W.3neednodetaildiscussionand
itissufficienttostatethattheirevidencesupportsthecaseofprosecution
indicatinginvolvementoftheaccusedinthecommissionofoffence.
70]

Nowletussee,whatistheconductoftheaccusedbeforethe

incidence.Theincidenceinquestionoccurredon13102011at9to9.30
a.m.atFlatNo.202,NewMarketPlaza,CloverVillage,Wanawadi. One
daybeforetheincidenti.e.on12102011,AnushreehadcometoPuneat
thesaidflat.Since7102011to10102011,shewasthereatPuneatthe
flat of Nimesh. She was insisting Nimesh to marry her. As Nimesh
refused,shewenttoBangaloreon10102011andsheagainreturnedto

28

Pune on 12102011. When admittedly live in relationship between

AnushreeandNimeshcametoanendintheyear2010andwhensheleft
PuneandwenttoBangalore,aquestionarisesastowhatwasthereason
forhertocomeagaintoPuneandtostayattheflatofNimesh.
71]

After Anushree had come to Nimesh, Nimesh informed his

motherandhismotheraskedJuhitogotoPune.JuhicametoPuneand
shereachedatabout5.30p.m.Therewasdiscussionthroughoutthenight
betweenAnushree,NimeshandJuhiaboutmarriageofNimeshwithJuhi.
UltimatelyAnushreeassuredthatshewillnotcreateanyprobleminthe
marriageofNimeshandJuhi. Thesubsequenteventsareverymaterial,
showing the conduct of Anushree and her ultimate intention/motive
behindthecommissionofoffence.
72]

After discussion till morning, Nimesh and Juhi slept in one

bed room and Anushree was asked to sleep in another bed room.
However,shetoldthatshewillsitonthechairandshewilltakerest.She
askedNimesh,nottoclosethedoorofhisbedroomfrominside. This
conductofAnushreebeforetheactualincidenthastobeborneinmind
whilearrivingataproperconclusion.Thefactsandcircumstancesofthe
matterinitsentiritygotoshowthathere the actual plan of Anushree
started.ThenAnushreewenttoKedaripetrolpump,purchasedpetroland
broughtpetroltotheflat. Here,itissignificanttonotethatthefactof
AnushreegoingtoKedaripetrolpumpandbringingpetrolfromthepetrol
pumpisadmittedbytheaccused.ThepanchnamaExh.50aboutseizure
ofC.D.isadmittedbytheaccused.However,itisthesayoftheaccused
thatNimeshhasaskedhertobringpetroltofillinhisvehicle. Butthis
submissionofaccuseddoesnotstandthetestoftruth. Itseemshighly
improbable,ratherimpossiblethatNimesh,whowasinliveinrelationship

29

S.C. No. 197/12.

withAnushreefrom2009to2010willaskhertogotothepetrolpump
and to bring petrol for his vehicle that too in the early morning after
discuss`ionthroughoutthenightaboutmarriageofNimeshandJuhi.The
circumstances of the case that there was discussion between Nimesh,
AnushreeandJuhithroughoutthenightandtherewashottalkbetween
AnushreeandJuhiandAnushreedecidedtoleavetheflatofNimeshand
togotoBangaloreinaveryunpleasantstateofmind,causemetostate
thatitishighlyimpossiblethatNimeshwillaskAnushreetobringpetrol
forhisvehicleandthatAnushreewillobeytheorderofNimeshSinha.
73]

Inthiscontext,thedocumentaryevidenceonrecordalsogoes

against the accused. The articles seized vide spot panchnama Exh.48,
whichisadmittedbytheaccusedweresenttoChemicalAnalyzerandthe
reportsreceivedfromC.A.areatExh.152,154and156. Inthereport
Exh.152,petrol/residuesofpetrolrevealedonarticles2,3and6i.e.partly
burntgunnyclothpiece,partlyburntTshirtandpartlyburntclothpiece.
Besides,itisalsosignificanttonotethatthebottleseizedfromthespotof
incidentisabottlefromthepetrolpumpandnotthebottlefromthehouse
ofNimeshindicatingthatAnushreehasbroughtpetrolfromKedaripetrol
pumponherownaccordandnotattheinstanceofNimesh.
74]

AnushreeinherstatementExh.76hasstatedthatshehaskept

herclothesshewaswearingatthetimeofincidenti.e.greencoloured
KurtaandblueJeanspantinthecupboardofbedroomofthehouseofher
sister Vani Narendra Gad. Consequently, Anushree has produced her
clothesfromthecupboardofthebedroomofthehouseofhersisterVani
at Jeet Nagar, and memorandum panchnama Exh.77 was prepared
accordingly. The panch witness Ravi Kanojiya (P.W.6) examined by
prosecution has supported the fact of preparation of panchnama in his

30

presence.
75]

Thus, the fact is clearly proved that on 13102011 in the

morningAnushreehadgonetoKedaripetrolpump,broughtpetrolinthe
bottlefromthepetrolpump,andlinkingthisfacttothefactthatpetrol
residuesrevealedonarticle2,3and6, leavenodoubttostatethatitis
Anushree only, who has committed offence by pouring petrol on the
personofNimeshandJuhiandpouringpetrolonthe bed,where they
were sleeping and by setting them on fire by lightening match stick
ultimatelyresultingindeathofJuhiandsustaininginjuriesbyNimesh.

76]

Lastly,comingtothedefenceoftheaccusedi.e.Nimeshhas

called Anushree and Juhi at Pune for eliminating Juhi and implicating
Anushreeinafalsecase,attheoutset,ithastobenotedthatthisdefence
of the accused is very interesting defence. According to the accused,
NimeshhaskeptphysicalrelationswithAnushreeaswellasJuhiandhe
was flirting with both the grils and he has cheated both of them. He
wanted to get rid of both of them. In this regard, it is submitted by
AdvocateShri.ShahainhisargumentthatEmailExh.90wassentbyJuhi
to Nimesh on 8102011 at 3.41 p.m. i.e. four days before the alleged
incidence and she has stated that Nimesh had not told her about his
relationswithAnushree.ThesaidEmailwassentbyNimeshtoAnushree.
JuhibywayofEmailexpressedherangerandthismusthaveprovoked
Nimeshtoeliminateher.Itisalsosubmittedonbehalfoftheaccusedthat
there was strong motive of Nimesh to commit murder of Juhi and
implicateAnushreefalselyinthematter.

31

77]

S.C. No. 197/12.

LearnedDGPSmt.Pawarhasraisedaquestioninthisregard

thatwhenAushreeherselfwastherefrom7102011to10102011inthe
flatofNimeshhimself,whyNimeshwillsentEmailsentbyJuhitohimto
Anushree and has submitted that Anushree was knowing password of
Nimeshandsheherselfhastransferredthemessagetoher.
78]

ItissubmittedbylearnedD.G.P.Smt.Pawarthatadmittedly

NimeshandJuhiwereknowingeachother. Theyweretakingeducation
togetherfrom7thto10thstandard.WhenmarriageofJuhiwasfixedwith
NimeshandwhenJuhicametoknowaboutliveinrelationshipbetween
NimeshandAnushree,itisquitenaturalthatJuhigotangriedandEmail
Exh.90 is the outcome of anger of Juhi. But Juhi has in her dying
declarationhasnarratedthetruthandtruthonlywhileshewasondeath
bedandhenceEmailExh.90cannotsupporttheaccusedtogetherself
escapedfromthecommissionofoffenceandtoshowintentionofNimesh
toeliminateJuhi.
79]

Theargumentadvancedonbehalfoftheprosecutionisquite

convincingforthereasonthatitisnotthecaseofaccusedthatNimeshwas
in love withsomeotherthirdladyandhedidnotwanttomarrywith
AnushreeorwithJuhisoastoacceptthathewantedtogetridfromboth
ofthem.Moreover,itisnotatallacceptablethatapersonwillgotothe
extentofdecidingtokilltheladywithwhomhewasacquaintedsincethe
timeofeducationandwithwhomhewasgoingtomarry,onlybecauseshe
hassentsuchEmailtohim.Thedefenceoftheaccuseddoesnotappear
tobeprobableandacceptablefromanypointofview.
80]

Inthiscontext,learnedD.G.P.Smt.Pawarhassubmittedthat

thedefenceoftheaccusedistotallyfalse.Shehasplacedherrelianceon

32

Panchu Nahak Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1985 Cri. L.J., 1633,
whereinitisheldbytheHon'bleHighCourtthat:
Thefalsedefenceraisedbytheaccusedcanbeusedagainst
him/herasanadditionallinktopointnotathisguilt.

81]

Nowinthepresentcase,theprosecutionevidencealongwith

the abnormal human behaviour and unnatural conduct of the accused

point towards her showing her as the perpetrator of the crime. The
defenceoftheaccusedappearstobeafalsedefenceandtheauthorities
relieduponbytheprosecutiondefinitelyassistit.
82]

Besidestheabovesaidspecificdefenceaboutinvolvementof

Nimesh in the commission of offence, various questions are raised on

behalfoftheaccusedtocastshadowofdoubtonthetruthfulnessofstory
putforthbytheprosecutionmakingtheaccusedentitledtogetbenefitof
doubt.
83]

Advocate Shri. Shaha raised following objections in the

written notes of argumens Exh.167, in order to falsify the case of the

prosecution.
i]

WhystatementofNimeshwasnotrecordedearlier?

Ii]

WhyinjurycertificateofNimeshisnotprovedbyprosecution?

iii]

whyparentsofJuhiarenotexainedbyprosecution?

iv]

WhyNimeshsustainedlessinjuriesthanJuhi?

v]

WhythereisdelayinlodgingFIR?

andhassubmittedthatallthesequestionsdefinitelycreatedoubtinmind

33

S.C. No. 197/12.

abouttruthfulnessofthestoryoftheprosecutionandbenefitofthesame
goestotheaccused.
However,thelearnedD.G.P.Smt.Pawarhastakenmuchpain
and efforts in this case and has convincingly answered every question/
doubtinherreplytothesatisfactionoftheCourt.
84]

ItissubmittedbyD.G.P.Smt.Pawarthatasperevidenceof

Nimesh,atabout9to9.30a.m.,hefeltsmellofkerosene/petrolandhe
also felt that kerosene/petrol was falling on his person. He saw that
Anushreewasholdingbottleandpouringpetrolontheirbody.Juhiasked
herastowhatshewasdoing.Nimeshinhisevidencehasfurtherstated
thatwhenhewasabouttoreachtoAnushree,shesetthebedonfirewith
matchstickandthenshewentoutsidethebedroomandlockedthedoor
fromoutside.D.G.P.Smt.Pawarhassubmittedinthiscontextthatwhen
NimeshwasabouttoreachAnushree,shesetonfirebylightingmatch
stick. Nimesh, therefore, sustained less injuries than Juhi. It is also
submitted on behalf of the prosecution that in view of the above said
circumstances/situationstatedbyNimesh,itisbutnaturalthathislegsor
lowerportiondidnotgetburnandhishandsonlygotburnt.D.G.PSmt.
PawarhasalsosubmittedthatthisevidenceofNimeshisnotchallengedin
hisentirecrossexaminationandthesamehastobeacceptedastrue.
85]

Inregardtotheobjectionaboutnonexaminationofparentsof

Juhi, who initially have raised doubt against Nimesh in respect of the
incident, it is submitted by D.G.P. Smt. Pawar that the prosecution has
examinedalltherelevantandmaterialwitnessesanditisthequalityand
notthequantityofwitnesses,whichhastobetakenintoconsideration.
Thisargumentseemsquiteacceptable.

34

86]

True,itisthatparentsofJuhimovedtheHighCourtbyway

ofWritPetitionNo.737/2013,buttheyhavesubsequentlywithdrawnthe
saidpetition.Thisfactgoesagainsttheaccused.Here,itwouldnotbeout
of place to state that if the parents of deceased Juhi had raised their
suspicionagainstNimeshaboutcommissionoftheoffence,accusedhadan
opportunity to examine them in support of her defence as defence
witnesses.However,thishasnotbeendonebytheaccused.Theparents
ofJuhi,whowerecitedaswitnessesbyprosecutionmayalsohavecome
before the Court to get themselves examined to strengthen their
doubt/suspicion,butthishasalsonothappened.Thisbeingso,theabove
saidquestionaboutnonexaminationofparentsofJuhiraisedbyaccused
findsnoplace.
87]

So far as objection of non recording statement of Nimesh

earlieranddelayinlodgingFIRisconcerned,itissubmittedbyDGPSmt.
PawarthatasJuhiwasseriouslyinjuredandasshewasondeathbed,her
statementwasnecessarytoberecordedfirstandpolicehasrecordedthe
same, when she gained consciousness and when she was fit to give
statementandtherewasnodelayinlodgingFIR.AsNimeshhassustained
less injuries, police has recorded his statement subsequently and this
showstransparencyonthepartofinvestigation.
The said argument advanced on behalf of the prosecution
standstothetestofsatisfactionandthesamehastobeaccepted.
Theprosecutionthushasansweredallthequestionsraisedon
behalfoftheaccusedandhasclearedalltheobjectionsraised,byher.
88]

Having discussed about the evidence on record, having

discussedaboutauthoritiesrelieduponbytherespectiveparties,having

35

S.C. No. 197/12.

discussed about defence of the accused and having discussed about

objections/questionsraisedonbehalfoftheaccused,tocastshadowof
doubtabouttruthfulnessofprosecutionstoryandhavingdiscussedabout
conductoftheaccusedandthecircumstancespointingfingertowardsthe
accused,letmehavediscussiononthepointofmotive/intentionofthe
accused.
89]

Admittedly, accused Anushree is a divorcee having a son.

NimeshandAnushreewereknowingeachotherastheyweredoingjobin
the same company. Nimesh and Anushree were living in live in
relationshipfrom2009to2010.ShewasintendingtomarryNimeshand
shehasmadeproposaltothateffect. However,the parentsofNimesh
werenotreadyforthemarriageofNimeshwithAnushreeasAnushreewas
elder than Nimesh and Anushree belonged to another caste. Hence,
marriageofNimeshwasfixedwithJuhi,whowasbelongingtohiscaste
andwhowasalsoknowntohim.JuhiwasAdvocatepractisingatDelhi
HighCourt. AnushreewantedthatNimeshshouldnotmarrywithJuhi,
but he should marry with her. The fact of settlement of marriage of
NimeshwithJuhimighthavecausedAnushreefeelinginsecured.
90]

Admittedly,liveinrelationshipbetweenNimeshandAnushree

cametoanendintheyear2010andAnushreewenttoBangalore.Butshe
againcametoPuneon7102011andstayedatthehouseofNimeshtill
10102011.On12102011,JuhihadcometoPunetomeetNimesh,who
washerproposedbridegroom, ongettingknowledgethatAnushreehad
cometoNimesh.TheactofAnushreecomingtoPuneon12102011itself
appearstobethestartingpointofherillmotiveandstartingpointofher
plan. There was hot talk /discussion throughout the night between
Nimesh,AnushreeandJuhiinrespectofmarriageofNimeshandJuhiand

36

asperprosecutionstory,finallyAnushreewasconvincedandshetoldthat
shewillnotinterfereorshewillnotcreateanyprobleminthemarriageof
NimeshandJuhi.
91]

The subsequent conduct and behaviour of Anushree is very

significant. When Nimesh and Juhi went to sleep in one bed room,
Anushree asked not to bolt the door from inside. This shows that
Anushree,whowasinlovewithNimeshandwhowaslivingwithhimin
liveinrelationship,feltjealousy,whenNimeshandJuhiweresleepingin
onebedroomonthesamebed.AshasbeensubmittedbylearnedD.G.P.
Smt.Pawaronbehalfoftheprosecution,Anushreebeingadivorceehaving
ason,parameterofherinsecuritywenttoextremeendandthisfeelingof
insecuritycoupledwithjealousyandanger,causedAnushreetocommit
theoffence.She,therefore,wenttopetrolpump,broughtpetrol,entered
thebedroom,whichwasnotboltedfrominside,pouredpetrolonthebed,
where Nimesh and Juhi were sleeping and also poured petrol on their
personandsetthemselvesablazebylighteningmatchstickandwentaway
withherbagsandbaggages.
92]

The above said facts and circumstancesbeing incriminating

circumstancesagainstAnushree,makeitcrystalclearthatshewantedto
endthelifeofJuhiashermarriagewasfixedwithNimeshandasshefelt
insecuredandthemotive/intentionbehindthecommissionofoffenceis
thusclearlydisclosed.
93]

Thus, having given my anxious consideration to the facts,

evidenceandcircumstancesofthiscase,Ihavenohesitationtocometo
theconclusionthatthedeathofJuhiishomicidaldeathandAnushreeis
guiltyofcommittingmurderofJuhiandshehasalsoattemptedtocommit

37

S.C. No. 197/12.

murderofNimesh.Theprosecutionhasprovedboththechargeslevelled
againsttheaccusedbeyondtherealmofreasonabledoubt. I,therefore,
answerPointsNo.1and2intheaffirmative.
94]

Havingfoundtheaccusedguilty,thestagehascometo

heartheaccusedonthepointofsentence. I,therefore,takeherea
pause,toheartheaccusedonthepointofsentence.

(Smt.L.L.Yenkar)
AdditionalsessionsJudge,Pune.

Date:15122015.

95]

.Heardtheaccused.Shehassubmittedthatthistrialhas

takenalongperiodoffouryearsforitsconclusionandsheisinjail
sincelastfouryears.ShehasfurthersubmittedthatiftheCourthas
givenitsdecisiononthebasisofevidenceonrecord,shedoesnot
haveanywordsandleniencybeshowntoher.
96]

AdvocateShri.Jatharfortheaccusedhassubmittedthat

theaccusedisayoungladyhavingoldparentsandthisisnotararest
ofrarecase.Hence,minimumsentencebeimposed.
97]

I also heard learned D.G.P. Smt. Pawar. She has

submittedthatthoughthisisnotararestofrarecase,themannerin
whichtheaccusedhascommittedmurderofJuhi,whowaspractising
Advocate,hastobetakenintoconsiderationandpunishmentoflife
imprisonment be given in respect of the offence punishable under
section302ofI.P.C. Shehasfurthersubmittedthat undersection
307ofI.P.C.also,punishmentoflifeimprisonmentisprovidedasper

38

law.
98]

After having consideredthe submissionsoftheaccused

andhercounselandhavingconsideredthesubmissiononbehalfof
the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that following order
wouldmeettheendsofjustice.
ORDER

1}

TheaccusedAnushreeSatishkumarKundra

isconvicted

oftheoffencepunishableundersection302oftheIndianPenalCode
andsheissentencedtoimprisonmentforlife andtopayafineof
Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, the accused to suffer
furtherR.I.forthreemonths.
2}

The accused is further convicted of the offence

punishableundersection307oftheIndianPenalCodeandsheis
sentenced to suffer R. I. for seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/.Indefaultofpaymentoffine,accusedtosufferfurtherR.
I.fortwomonths.
3}

Boththesentencestorunconcurrently.

4}

Theaccusedisentitledtosetoffaspertheprovisionsof

section428ofCr.P.C.
5}

ThemuddemalpropertybedeliveredtotheChiefJudicial

Magistrate,Pune,aspertheprovisionsofSection452(3)oftheCode
ofCriminalProcedure,whoshalldealwithitinthemannerprovided
in sections457, 458 and 459 ofCr.P.C.,afterthe appealperiodis
over.

39

S.C. No. 197/12.

Copyofjudgmentbeprovidedtotheaccusedfreeofcosts
withoutdelay.
JudgmentpronouncedinopenCourt.

Date:15/12/2015.

(Smt.L.L.Yenkar)
AdditionalSessionsJudge,Pune.

40

IaffirmthatthecontentsofthisPDFfileJudgmentaresamewordto
wordasperoriginalJudgment.
NameofSteno:
Mr.S.R.Shahane.
CourtName:
Smt.L.L.Yenkar.

AdditionalSessionsJudge,Pune.
Date onwhichtheP.O.
Signedthejudgment:
15/12/2015
DateofPDFfile:
15/12/2015
Judgmentuploadedon:
15/12/2015

41

S.C. No. 197/12.

I N T H E S E S S I O N S C O U R T, P U N E .
(Before:Smt.L.L.Yenkar,DistrictJudge14and
AdditionalSessionsJudge,Pune.)
SESSIONSCASENO.131/2011
(C.RNo.153/2010ofShirurPolicestation.)
State ofMaharashtraVs.Raju@RajendraKisanChavhan

OPERATVEORDER

Accused Raju @ Rajendra Kisan Chavhan is acquitted for the

offencespunishableundersections363,366A,376and506(ii) ofthe
IndianPenalCode.
Thebailbondoftheaccusedstandscancelled.
TheaccusedshallfurnishP.B.&S.B.ofRs.15,000/fornextperiod
of six months as required under section 437(A) of Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973.
Muddemalpropertyi.e. clothes, being worthless, bedestroyed
aftertheappealperiodisover.

42

Date:30/10/2015.

(Smt.L.L.Yenkar)
AdditionalSessionsJudge,Pune.