Hugging Face's logo

Datasets:
anabaena
/
bail-project-raw-data

Dataset card Files
xet
 Community
bail-project-raw-data / hc_bulk\IPC_1027578.html
anabaena's picture
anabaena
Upload batch 0-50
b3668d7 verified
raw
history blame contribute delete
84.4 kB
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<link type="text/css" href="/static/js/jquery-ui-1.13.2/jquery-ui.min.css" rel="stylesheet">
<link type="text/css" href="/static/js/jquery-ui-1.13.2/jquery-ui.theme.min.css" rel="stylesheet">
<link type="text/css" href="/static/footer.css" rel="stylesheet">
<link type="text/css" href="/static/print.css" rel="stylesheet">
<LINK REL="stylesheet" TYPE="text/css" HREF="/static/search_desktop_v20.css?v=20241118-1">
<!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->
<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-HML2J37TKY"></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag('js', new Date());
gtag('config', 'G-HML2J37TKY');
</script>
<TITLE>Deorao S/O Sonbaji Bhalerao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 June, 2008</TITLE>
</head>
<body class="docpage">
<!-- Skip link for keyboard and screen reader users -->
<a href="#main-content" class="skip-link">Skip to main content</a>
<header class="main-header" role="banner">
<h1 class="sr-only">Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law</h1>
<div class="header-container">
<!-- Left: Logo (hidden on homepage) -->
<div class="header-logo">
<a href="/" aria-label="Indian Kanoon Home">
<img src="/static/pics/ikanoon7_large.png" alt="Indian Kanoon" class="header-logo-img">
</a>
</div>
<!-- Center: Search Bar (hidden on homepage and search page) -->
<div class="header-search" role="search">
<h2 class="sr-only">Search</h2>
<form method="GET" action="/search/" class="search-form">
<label for="header-search-box" class="sr-only">Search Indian laws and judgments</label>
<input type="text" name="formInput" class="searchbox" id="header-search-box"
placeholder="Search laws, court judgments and everything else ..."
value="" autocomplete="off">
<input type="submit" value="Search" class="submitbutton header-submitbutton" id="header-submit-button">
</form>
</div>
<!-- Right: Navigation -->
<div class="header-nav">
<!-- Desktop Navigation -->
<nav class="nav-desktop" aria-label="Main navigation">
<h2 class="sr-only">Main Navigation</h2>
<a href="/free_features/" class="nav-link">Free features</a>
<div class="premium-dropdown">
<button class="nav-link premium-dropdown-btn" id="premium-dropdown-btn" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="premium-dropdown-menu" aria-haspopup="true">
Premium
<svg width="12" height="12" viewBox="0 0 12 12" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" aria-hidden="true">
<polyline points="3 4.5 6 7.5 9 4.5"></polyline>
</svg>
</button>
<div class="premium-dropdown-menu" id="premium-dropdown-menu" role="menu" aria-hidden="true">
<a href="/premium/" class="premium-dropdown-item" role="menuitem">Premium features</a>
</div>
</div>
<a href="/prism/" class="nav-link brand-prism">Prism AI</a>
<a href="/prism/pricing" class="nav-link">Pricing</a>
<a href="/members/login/" class="nav-link">Login</a>
</nav>
<!-- Mobile Menu Button -->
<button class="mobile-menu-btn" id="mobile-menu-btn" aria-label="Open mobile menu" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="mobile-menu">
<svg width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" aria-hidden="true">
<line x1="3" y1="6" x2="21" y2="6"></line>
<line x1="3" y1="12" x2="21" y2="12"></line>
<line x1="3" y1="18" x2="21" y2="18"></line>
</svg>
</button>
</div>
</div>
<!-- Mobile Menu (hidden by default) -->
<nav class="mobile-menu" id="mobile-menu" aria-label="Mobile navigation" aria-hidden="true">
<h2 class="sr-only">Mobile Navigation</h2>
<div class="mobile-menu-content">
<a href="/free_features/" class="mobile-nav-link">Free features</a>
<div class="premium-dropdown mobile">
<div class="mobile-nav-link premium-dropdown-header">Premium</div>
<a href="/premium/" class="mobile-nav-link premium-dropdown-item">Premium features</a>
</div>
<a href="/prism/" class="mobile-nav-link brand-prism">Prism AI</a>
<a href="/prism/pricing" class="mobile-nav-link">Pricing</a>
<a href="/members/login/" class="mobile-nav-link">Login</a>
</div>
</nav>
</header>
<main id="main-content" role="main">
<h2 class="sr-only">Legal Document View</h2>
<div class="maindoc">
<aside class="left_column sticky_column" aria-label="Tools for analyzing structure and cite text of judgments">
<h3 class="sr-only">Tools for analyzing structure and cite text of judgments</h3>
<div id="structuralanal"></div>
<div id="citetextdash"></div>
</aside>
<article class="middle_column" role="article">
<div class="ad_doc">
<a href="/members/signup/">
<img src="/static/posters/Introducing Prism, A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon.gif"
alt="Introducing PRISM - A suite of AI tools developed on the vast and comprehensive database of Indian Kanoon">
</a>
</div>
<nav class="docoptions" aria-label="Document actions">
<h4 class="sr-only">Document Options</h4>
<form method="POST" action="/doc/1027578/" class="button-form">
<input type="hidden" name="csrfmiddlewaretoken" value="H36EQJb5UOa3HR290gong0jdDct0bn8G7ugyp0IZ0e4y7g28Ska1HLb3QdxX59k4">
<input type="hidden" name="type" value="pdf">
<button id="pdfdoc" type="submit" class="action-button" aria-label="Download document as PDF">Get in PDF</button>
</form>
<form method="POST" action="/doc/1027578/" class="button-form">
<input type="hidden" name="csrfmiddlewaretoken" value="H36EQJb5UOa3HR290gong0jdDct0bn8G7ugyp0IZ0e4y7g28Ska1HLb3QdxX59k4">
<input type="hidden" name="type" value="print">
<button id="printdoc" type="submit" class="action-button" aria-label="Print this document">Print it!</button>
</form>
<form id="courtcopyform" method="POST" action="/doc/1027578/" class="button-form">
<input type="hidden" name="csrfmiddlewaretoken" value="H36EQJb5UOa3HR290gong0jdDct0bn8G7ugyp0IZ0e4y7g28Ska1HLb3QdxX59k4">
<input type="hidden" name="type" value="courtcopy">
<button id="courtcopysubmit" type="submit" class="action-button" aria-label="Download official court copy">Download Court Copy</button>
</form>
</nav>
<div class="judgments">
<div class="covers">
<span class="citetop">[Cites <a href="/search/?formInput=cites:1027578">18</a>, Cited by <a href="/search/?formInput=citedby:1027578">0</a>]</span>
</div>
<h3 class="docsource_main">Bombay High Court</h3>
<h2 class="doc_title">Deorao S/O Sonbaji Bhalerao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 June, 2008</h2>
<h3 class="doc_author">Author: <a href="/search/?formInput=authorid:a-p-lavande">A.P. Lavande</a></h3>
<h3 class="doc_bench">Bench: <a href="/search/?formInput=benchid:a-p-lavande">A.P. Lavande</a></h3>
<pre id="pre_1"> 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2003
1. Deorao s/o Sonbaji Bhalerao,
aged about 64 years,
Occ.: Retired teacher.
2. Kulbhushan s/o Deorao Bhalerao,
aged about 29 years,
Occupation Driver,
Both r/o Nehru Nagar,
Ghatanji, Distt. Yavatmal ... APPELLANTS.
- VERSUS -
The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. Frezarpur,
Tq. Ghatanji,
District Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENT.
.....
Mr.Amol Mardikar Advocate (Appointed) for the Appellants.
Mr. J.B Jaiswal , A.P.P., for Respondent.
.,...
CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE &amp;
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 07.04.2008.
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.06.2008.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::
2
J U D G M E N T (Per A.B. Chaudhari, J.) :</pre>
<p data-structure="Issue" id="p_1"> The two appellants in the instant appeal have
challenged the judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 made
by the II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in
S.T. No. 219/01, convicting both of them for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with <a href="/doc/37788/" id="a_1">Section 34</a> of
Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
two months.
</p>
<p data-structure="Facts" id="p_2"> 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant
no.2 Kulbhushan and deceased Sunita Bhanse were
residing at Ghatanji, district Yavatmal. Deceased Sunita
was married to one Chandrakant Bhanse but she had
developed extra marital relations with appellant no.2 and
had left her husband. Appellant no.2 and Sunita came to
Amravati and started residing as tenant in the house of
Vishwanath Alone (P.W. 3). They stayed there for about 10-
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_1"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_2"> 3</span>
15 days.
</p>
<p data-structure="CDiscource" id="p_3"> 3. On the date of incident, i.e. 5.7.2001, at about
10 p.m., appellant no.1 Deorao- the father of appellant no.2
and his mother came to the house of appellant no.2 at
Amravati. There was a quarrel between deceased Sunita
and appellant no.1 because she was residing with appellant
no.2. During quarrel, at about 11-15 p.m., appellant no.1
took out a container containing kerosene and sprinkled the
same on the person of Sunita and thereafter appellant no.2
by means of a match stick set her on fire. She came out of
the house in a burning condition raising cry. Vishwanath
Alone (P.W. 3)- the owner of the house, noticed that both
the appellants were running. With the help of other
persons, Vishwanath extinguished fire by water.
</p>
<p data-structure="Facts" id="p_4"> Thereafter Sunita was taken to the hospital by the
appellants on the request made by Vishwanath. At about
11-55 p.m. Sunita was admitted in the hospital. Necessary
arrangement for recording the dying declaration of Sunita
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_3"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_4"> 4</span>
was made. P.W. 4 Mahore- Special Judicial Magistrate
arrived at the hospital and issued letter (Ex.22) requesting
the medical officer on duty to examine the patient and after
obtaining necessary certificate from the medical officer he
recorded the dying declaration of Sunita (Ex.23) in question
and answer form. After the dying declaration was recorded,
the medical officer again certified that the patient was
conscious throughout. On 6.7.2001, at about 9-20 a.m.,
Sunita expired. A.S.I. Kakde (P.W. 2) having received the
dying declaration registered the crime under <a href="/doc/1560742/" id="a_2">section 302</a>
read with <a href="/doc/37788/" id="a_3">section 34</a> of Indian Penal Code and arrested
both the appellants on the same day. He drew the spot
panchanama and seized a plastic container containing
kerosene, match-stick, burnt saree etc. He forwarded the
dead body for post mortem after completing inquest
panchanama. Dr.Diwan (P.W. 5), who performed autopsy
on the dead body of Sunita, found 95% burn injuries with
septicaemia. After completion of investigation, charge-
</p>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_5"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_6"> 5</span>
<p data-structure="Facts" id="p_5"> sheet came to be filed against both the appellants.
</p>
<p data-structure="PetArg" id="p_6"> 4. Both the appellants denied the charge framed
against them and claimed to be tried. The trial proceeded.
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_7"> The defence was of total denial. The trial Court on
appreciating the evidence on record held that the only
evidence before it was in the form of dying declaration (Ex.
</p>
<p data-structure="Facts" id="p_8"> 23) which was free from doubt and believing the same
convicted and sentenced both the appellants, as stated
above.
</p>
<p data-structure="PetArg" id="p_9"> 5. Mr.Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellants
argued that the dying declaration (Ex.23) is liable to be
rejected in the first place because the deceased had
admittedly suffered burn injuries to the extent of 95% and
it was impossible for her to speak or give the dying
declaration (Ex.23). According to him, Sunita was not in a
fit mental condition to make voluntary disclosure of the
incident and, therefore, it was risky to rely upon the sole
piece of evidence, namely the dying declaration. In this
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_7"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_8"> 6</span>
connection, he relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in
</p><p data-structure="Issue" id="p_10"> (i) Paparambaka Rosamma &amp; ors. v. State of A.P. -
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_11"> (1999) 7 SCC 695 and (ii) Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State
of A.P. - 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1784.
</p>
<p data-structure="RespArg" id="p_12"> 6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. inviting our
attention to the evidence of Special Judicial Magistrate
(P.W.4), who recorded the dying declaration, pointed out
that full care was taken by this witness before and after
recording of the dying declaration. According to the learned
A.P.P., this witness in his evidence deposed all that was
required to prove a dying declaration, namely that the
patient was conscious and in a fit condition to give dying
declaration and was accordingly certified by the medical
officer before recording the dying declaration. The dying
declaration was recorded by him and he stated before the
Court that the contents of the same were correct. He had
read out the contents to the patient who admitted them to
be correct. Thereafter he obtained the signature of the
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_9"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_10"> 7</span>
patient and also put his signature on the dying declaration.
</p>
<p data-structure="CDiscource" id="p_13"> After recording dying declaration the medical officer again
examined the patient and certified that she was in a fit
condition throughout when the dying declaration was
recorded. According to him, this is enough and it was not
necessary to depose the exact words the deceased had
uttered about the person who poured kerosene on her
person and set her on fire because there is a presumption
of genuineness attached to the document of dying
declaration as per <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_4">Section 80</a> of Indian Evidence Act, it
being a record of evidence given by a witness to a
Magistrate authorised by law.
</p>
<p data-structure="CDiscource" id="p_14"> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties. We have gone through the entire evidence on
record. In view of the submissions made before us, the
questions which arise, inter alia, for our determination,
are as under :
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_1"> (i) Whether presumption under <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_5">Section 80</a>
of Indian Evidence Act can be drawn in
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_11"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_12"> 8</span>
respect of a dying declaration recorded by a
Magistrate without proof as to the cause of
death of the dying person or as to in all the
circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death and particularly in
respect of the name or description of/and
act of the accused/offender in committing
the offence of murder?
</blockquote><blockquote id="blockquote_2"> (ii)
Magistrate
Whether
who
it is necessary
recorded the
for the
dying
declaration to depose before the trial Court
about the name and act of the accused
which resulted into the murder, in the
words spoken up by the dying man?
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Issue" id="p_15"> Since the above questions were of great importance, we
were required to find out the genesis of the law in relation
to the above aspects.
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_16"> 8. <a href="/doc/1953529/" id="a_6">The Indian Evidence Act, Act</a> No. 1 of 1872 (15th
March, 1872) was codified as there were no fixed rules of
evidence. The law was vague and indefinite. After two
years of passing of this enactment, on December 3, 1874,
the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, as to the dying
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_13"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_14"> 9</span>
declaration, in the case of Reg. V. Fata Adaji &amp; Two
others reported in (1874) 11 Bom HCR 247, held as
under:
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_3"> &quot;The law does not provide that the mere
signature of a Magistrate shall be a
sufficient authentication of such a
document, and it is obviously desirable that
the person who took the statement should
be subject to cross-examination as to the
dying man&#x27;s state of mind when he made it,
and as to other circumstances. We must,
therefore, exclude this document in
considering the evidence in the case.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_17"> As to the submission that the statement be admitted
without proof under <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_7">Section 80</a> of Evidence Act, the Court
said :
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_4"> &quot;The Magistrate was(i) not the committing
Magistrate, and (ii) the prisoners were not
present, and (iii) had no opportunity of
cross-examining the dying man.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_18"> Thus this Court held that the person who took
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_15"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_16"> 10</span>
the statement of the dying man must be examined before
the Court for knowing the truth about the dying man&#x27;s
state of mind when he made it, and as to other
circumstances. Further, this Court also recorded three
reasons for not admitting the statement without proof<a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_8"> u/s
80</a> of Evidence Act.
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_19"> 9.
<span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Pos" data-docid="153563" id="span_17">In <a href="/doc/153563/" id="a_9">The Empress v. Samiruddin</a> - (1882) 8 Cal.</span>
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_20"> 211, on Dec. 14, 1881, the Division Bench of Calcutta
High Court held thus :
</p>
<p data-structure="CDiscource" id="p_21"> &quot;The piece of evidence to which this
observation relates is the dying statement of
the deceased Baber Ali. This was recorded by
the Deputy Magistrate as a `deposition;&#x27; but
it does not appear that Baber Ali was
examined in the presence of the accused
Samiruddin, and unless he were so examined
by the Deputy Magistrate exercising judicial
jurisdiction the writing made by such
Magistrate could not be admitted to prove the
statement made by the deceased. This
statement must have been proved in the
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_18"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_19"> 11</span>
ordinary way by a person who heard it made.
If the Deputy Magistrate had been called to
prove it, he might have refreshed his memory
with the writing made by himself at the time
when the statement was made.&quot;
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_22"> 10. In King-Emperor v. Mathura Thakur &amp; ors.
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_23"> -(1902) 6 C.W.N. 72, the Division Bench held on the same
line and Taylor J.
</p><p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_24"> igin his separate concurring judgment
remarked :
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_5"> &quot; With regard to the so-called dying-declaration
the witnesses should not have been allowed to
prove the document as if it was a substantial
piece of evidence in the case. The relevant fact to
be proved was the statement made by the
deceased person admissible under <a href="/doc/1959734/" id="a_10">Sec.32</a> of the
Evidence Act. That statement is not the
document made by the Magistrate but the verbal
statement made by the deceased person. The
document made by the Magistrate does not
amount to a deposition or record of evidence. It
was not taken in the presence of the accused;
nor was it taken in their absence under the
provisions and conditions prescribed by Sec.
</blockquote>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_20"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_21"> 12</span>
<blockquote id="blockquote_6"> 512, C.Cr.P. The only way of proving the
statement was therefore by the oral evidence of
some witnesses who heard it made, the said
witness being at liberty to refresh his memory by
referring to the note made by him or read over by
him at or about the time the statement was
made. I would lay stress upon this because in
many cases irregularities of this nature have led
to a miscarriage of justice or to great delay in the
trial of cases.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="PetArg" id="p_25"> 11. <span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Pos" data-docid="993493" id="span_22">In <a href="/doc/993493/" id="a_11">Gouridas Nomasudra v. Emperor-</a> (1908)
36 Cal. 659, the written petition of complaint which
contained the statement made by the deceased person as to
the cause of his death, was admitted in evidence on being
proved by the mukhtear&#x27;s mohurrir, who had prepared it
under personal instructions and who deposed that the
deceased made the statement to him which was correctly
recorded in the petition.</span>
</p>
<p data-structure="Section" id="p_26"> 12. In Ghazi v. Crown (1911) 17 P.R. 1911 Cr., it
was laid down that such statements must be proved and
this would appear to show that if proved they are
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_23"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_24"> 13</span>
admissible.
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_27"> 13. In re Karuppan Samban, reported in 31 IC
359 : [1915] 16 Cr.L.J. 759, the Division Bench of
Madras High Court held thus :
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_7"> &quot; But it is contended that Exh. D, the principal
of these, has not been properly proved, because the
Magistrate who recorded it was not examined as a witness
in the case. Reliance for this contention is placed on in the
matter of the Petition of Samiruddin (1),Gouridas
Nomasudra v. Emperor (2) and King-Emperor v. Mathura
Thakur (3). A similar observation to that in the matter of
the petition of Samiruddin (1), to the effect that when the
Magistrate who records the dying declaration is not the
Committing Magistrate and it is taken in the absence of the
accused, it is not admissible unless the recording officer is
examined as a witness, occurs also in Panchu Das v.
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_8"> Emperor (4) The learned Judges have not stated their
reasons for this position, nor have they explained on what
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_25"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_26"> 14</span>
sections of the <a href="/doc/445276/" id="a_12">Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence
Act</a> it is based. <span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Pos" data-docid="993493" id="span_27">In <a href="/doc/993493/" id="a_13">Gouridas Nomasudra v. Emperor</a> (2), it is
conceded that an oral statement of a deceased person as to
the cause of his death, if made in the absence of the
accused, may be proved by any one who heard it made, as
well as by the person who recorded it. That is sufficient for
the purpose of the case, as Exh.D has been proved by the
Sub-Assistant Surgeon who heard the statement being
made and signed it. With all the due deference, we are
unable to follow the learned Judges who decided In the
matter of the petition of Samiruddin (1) and King-Emperor
v. Mathura Thakur (3), when they say that the only way of
proving such a statement is by calling a person who heard
it made and permitting him to refresh the memory from the
writing under <a href="/doc/1945359/" id="a_14">section 159</a> of the Evidence Act. Whether
they are treated as written statements of deceased persons
or as written records of verbal statements, <a href="/doc/1135830/" id="a_15">section 32(1)</a>
allows dying declarations which have been reduced to
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_28"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_29"> 15</span>
writing to be admitted as relevant facts. They thus become
substantive evidence of the circumstances leading to the
deceased person&#x27;s death when the cause of the death is in
question. A statement taken in the absence of the accused
from a witness for the prosecution is described as a
`deposition&#x27; in <a href="/doc/445276/" id="a_16">section 512</a>, Criminal Procedure Code, but
<a href="/doc/1002421/" id="a_17">sections 157</a> and <a href="/doc/1686746/" id="a_18">158</a>, Evidence Act, show that, if it
satisfies the conditions of <a href="/doc/1959734/" id="a_19">section 32</a>, it is nevertheless a
`statement&#x27; and as such is relevant whether the absence of
the witness is caused by death or by some other cause
which makes him incapable of giving evidence in person.&quot;</span>
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_28"> As to the presumption<a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_20"> u/s 80</a> of Evidence Act, the Court
stated thus :
</p>
<p data-structure="CDiscource" id="p_29"> &quot;When, as here, the dying
declaration has appended to it a certificate
that it has been read over to the deponent and
declared to be correct, and this is signed by
the Magistrate who recorded the statement,
<a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_21">section 80</a> of the Evidence Act creates a
presumption that the circumstances under
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_30"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_31"> 16</span>
which it is stated to have been taken are true,
the investigation by the Magistrate being a
judicial proceedings. In this case, we have the
additional security that the Medical Officer
was present when the statement was taken
and certified that the patient was in his senses
at the time.&quot;
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_30"> <span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Pos" data-docid="1997499" id="span_32">14. Similarly, in <a href="/doc/1997499/" id="a_22">Emperor v. Balaram Das</a> - AIR
1922 Cal 382(2) the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court
held that though Babu Surendra Nath Ghosh, a Magistrate
who had recorded the Dying Declaration, had since died,
Asstt. Surgeon, P.W.6 who heard the same proved the
Dying declaration by his oral evidence.</span>
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_31"> 15. In Kaur Singh v. Emperor - AIR 1930 Lahore
450, the Division Bench on facts of that case observed
thus:
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_9"> &quot;In both these statements Mt.
Dhannon had stated that she was wounded
by the appellant with a tesha and in my
opinion they are valuable corroboration of
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_33"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_34"> 17</span>
the testimony to the eye witnesses.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_32"> 16. In Krishnama Naicken &amp; anr. v. Emperor
reported in AIR 1931 Madras 430, speaking for the Bench,
the Chief Justice Beasley said on page 434-
</p><p data-structure="CDiscource" id="p_33"> &quot;We guard ourselves from
saying that when a dying declaration has
been recorded and has been read over to
the deponent and agreed to be correct it
can be put in by itself and treated as
substantive evidence without calling
person who recorded it, as we are of the
opinion that the evidence of the person
who recorded it or in his unavoidable
absence some other person who was
present and heard it correctly recorded
should always be taken to make the
written record admissible.&quot;
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_34"> <span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Pos" data-docid="76985" id="span_35">17. A Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the
case of <a href="/doc/76985/" id="a_23">Suraj Bali v. Emperor</a> reported in AIR 1934
Allahabad 340, while disagreeing with the view taken by
Bombay High Court observed thus on page 342 of the
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_36"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_37"> 18</span>
report -</span>
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_10"> &quot;He has produced no ruling in his favour with
the exception of a very old ruling of the Bombay High Court
reported in Reg. v. Fata Adaji (1). In that case the
Government Prosecutor argued that the dying declaration
before a Magistrate on solemn affirmation might be
admitted without proof under<a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_24"> S.80</a>, Evidence Act. One of
the learned Judges observed :
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_11"> &quot;The Magistrate was not the committing
Magistrate, and the prisoners were not
present, and had no opportunity of
cross-examining the dying man.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="CDiscource" id="p_35"> Now, of these three reasons given not one
reason would be altered if the Magistrate who recorded the
dying deposition were called. That Magistrate would not
become the Committing Magistrate by being called as a
witness, nor would the defect of the accused having been
absent and not having had an opportunity of cross-
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_36"> examination be in any way removed by the calling of the
Magistrate who recorded the dying deposition. Further on
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_38"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_39"> 19</span>
the Court observed :
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_12"> &quot;The law does not provide that the
mere signature of a Magistrate shall be
a sufficient authentication of such a
document.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Section" id="p_37"> The only question before the Court was whether<a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_25"> S.80</a> does
or does not make that provision. The mere declaration that
it does not is no reason.&quot;
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_38"> On <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_26">Sec. 80</a>, Evidence Act, the Court held that a dying
declaration before a Magistrate and recorded by him is
admissible in evidence without calling the Magistrate or
without proof under this Section.
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_39"> 18. <span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Pos" data-docid="287202" id="span_40">In <a href="/doc/287202/" id="a_27">Emperor v. Somra Bhuian</a> reported in AIR
1938 Patna 52, the Division Bench held thus :</span>
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_13"> <span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Neg" data-docid="1997499" id="span_41">&quot;The argument is that the witness in
each case should have given his parol evidence in
full as to each sentence of what Kudrat stated to
him, and that the written record is not evidence
of the statements. For this proposition reliance is
placed on 8 Cal 211. In this case the dying
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_42"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_43"> 20</span>
statement of the deceased Baber Ali had been
recorded by the Deputy Magistrate as a
deposition but not apparently in the presence of
the accused. It was held that unless the
deponent had been so examined by the Deputy
Magistrate exercising judicial jurisdiction, the
statement required to be proved in the ordinary
way by a person who heard it made and could
not be proved by the writing made by the
Magistrate, though if the Deputy Magistrate had
been called to prove the statement, he might have
refreshed his memory with the writing made by
himself at the time when the statement was
made. This decision appears to have been
sometimes cited in support of more than the
Judges intended to lay down. In my opinion the
law is not that the written record cannot be used
at all, but that it is not to be used without first
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_44"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_45"> 21</span>
examining as a witness the person who heard the
statement made. This is the view taken in 49
<a href="/doc/1997499/" id="a_28">Cal.358 - Emperor v. Balram Das</a>.&quot;</span>
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Conclusion" id="p_40"> We have carefully considered the judgments
rendered by various High Courts as above. We record our
reasons hereinafter.
</p>
<p data-structure="Section" id="p_41"> 19.
The question which arises for our consideration
is, whether a dying declaration is admissible without proof,
under <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_29">Section 80</a> of the Evidence Act? It would be useful
to reproduce the said provision.
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_14"> &quot;80. Presumption as to documents produced
as record of evidence.- Whenever any document is
produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or
memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the
evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or
before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence,
or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or
accused person, taken in accordance with law, and
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_46"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_47"> 22</span>
purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by
any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume -
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_15"> that the document is genuine; that any
statements as to the circumstances
under which it was taken, purporting to
be made by the person signing it, are
true, and that such evidence, statement
or confession was duly taken.
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_16"> Since there are a number of &quot;and&quot; and &quot;or&quot;, in order to
avoid any ambiguity, this Section can be separated in three
parts to arrive at a plain interpretation. <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_30">S.80</a> applies to -
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_17"> (i) any document produced before any Court,
purporting to be a record or memoranda of evidence or of
any part of the evidence given by a witness in a judicial
proceedings, or
</blockquote><blockquote id="blockquote_18"> (ii) to a document purporting to be a record or
memo of evidence given by a witness before any officer
authorised to take such evidence, or
</blockquote><blockquote id="blockquote_19"> (iii) to a statement or confession by any prisoner
or accused person taken in accordance with law and
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_48"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:32 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_49"> 23</span>
purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or any
such officer as aforesaid (i.e. authorised by law). To put it
in another way, it would be -
</blockquote>
<pre id="pre_2"> (a) such document is memoranda of
evidence;
(b) the evidence was given by a witness;
and
(c) it was given in a judicial proceedings, or
</pre><blockquote id="blockquote_20"> before an officer authorised by law to take it.
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_42"> 20. The words &quot;by any prisoner or accused person&quot;
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_21"> govern also the word &quot;statement&quot; because if they governed
only the word &quot;confession&quot; the word &quot;statement&quot; would be
left all alone and would be too vague to make any sense.
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_22"> Let us put to test the submission made on behalf of the
State that dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate would
fall under <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_31">Section 80</a> of Evidence Act. <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_32">S.80</a> of Evidence
Act deals with presumptions to be attached to one
important class of judicial documents viz. depositions of
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_50"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_51"> 24</span>
witnesses in a judicial proceedings or documents recorded
by an officer necessarily means in some previous
proceedings. The reason is, evidence recorded in open
court in judicial proceedings or by an officer authorised to
take evidence by observance of certain prescribed rules and
formalities afford sufficient guarantee for the presumption
that it was
correctly done. The rule is, omnia
praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in
contrarium - everything is presumed to be rightly and duly
performed until the contrary is shown; and that the records
of a Court of justice have been correctly made. For
recording a dying declaration by a Magistrate, no particular
procedure is prescribed by statutory law nor evidence of
such a dying man is recorded in the presence of the
accused, nor the accused had any opportunity of cross-
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_23"> examining the dying man. The dying declaration is
recorded either before investigation begins or after and,
therefore, it cannot be said that the same even if treated as
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_52"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_53"> 25</span>
`evidence given by a witness&#x27; is not recorded during any
previous judicial proceedings or any proceedings before an
officer authorised by law to take such evidence. As Taylor
J. in the case of King Emperor v. Mathura Thakur, supra,
rightly observed that what is made admissible by<a href="/doc/1135830/" id="a_33"> S.32(1)</a> of
the Evidence Act is the verbal statement made by the dying
man to the Magistrate and not the document prepared by
the Magistrate. The document made by the Magistrate does
not amount to a deposition or record of evidence so as to
attract the presumption under <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_34">Section 80</a> of Evidence Act.
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_24"> Therefore, what is admissible in evidence is the statement
made by the dying man as to who was responsible for
causing his death and not the paper on which dying
declaration is recorded. For these reasons therefore, <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_35">S.80</a>
of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in respect of
presumption to be drawn in respect of a dying declaration
recorded by a Magistrate or even an officer authorised by
law to take evidence. As a sequel to our finding about
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_54"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_55"> 26</span>
inapplicability of presumption under <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_36">Sec.80</a> of Evidence
Act, we further hold that the Magistrate or the person who
records a dying declaration will have to testify and prove
who was named as offender by the dying person before
Court where trial proceedings against accused are held.
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_25"> <span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Pos" data-docid="153563" id="span_56">In the case of <a href="/doc/153563/" id="a_37">Samiruddin</a>, supra, the Calcutta High Court
held that the statement must have been proved in the
ordinary way by a person who heard it made. If for any
reason the Magistrate is not available, any other person
who heard it when made can also testify and they being at
liberty to refresh memory by referring to the document as
provided by <a href="/doc/1945359/" id="a_38">Sections 159</a> and <a href="/doc/788391/" id="a_39">160</a> of Evidence Act.</span>
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Section" id="p_43"> 21. <a href="/doc/1151812/" id="a_40">Section 273</a> of Criminal Procedure Code reads
thus :
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_26"> &quot;Except as otherwise expressly provided,
all evidence taken in the course of the
trial or other proceeding shall be taken
in the presence of the accused, or, when
his personal attendance is dispensed
with, in the presence of his pleader.&quot;
</blockquote>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_57"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_58"> 27</span>
<p data-structure="CDiscource" id="p_44"> A dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate is not
recorded in the presence of the accused. But <a href="/doc/1135830/" id="a_41">Sec. 32(1)</a> of
the Evidence Act makes the same relevant and can be
proved by evidence and sanctity given to it is embodied in
the maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire, i.e. a man
will not meet his maker with lie in his mouth. That is why
tests of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with.
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_45"> But then relevancy in evidence and proof by evidence are
different things. Where accused is called upon to defend a
charge under <a href="/doc/1560742/" id="a_42">Sec. 302</a> I.P.C., the burden of proof in the
absence or presumption of law never shifts onto him. It
ever remains on the prosecution which has to prove the
charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The said traditional
legal concept remains unchanged even now. In such a
case, the accused can wait till the prosecution evidence is
over and then show that the prosecution has not proved
particular material facts through its prosecution witnesses
who failed to describe the names and role of the accused in
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_59"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_60"> 28</span>
the offence of murder as told by the dying man to such a
witness or a Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration.
</p>
<p data-structure="Conclusion" id="p_46"> By merely exhibiting the document of dying declaration its
contents and in particular the names of the offender/s and
the role played by them in committing the offence of
murder is not proved unless such witness or Magistrate
vouchsafes before the trial court as to whom did the dying
person named offenders. In Narbada Devi Gupta v.
</p>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_47"> Birendra Kumar - AIR 2004 SC 175, the apex court in
paragraph 16 held thus :
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_27"> &quot;The legal position is not in dispute that
mere production and marking of a
document as exhibit by the Court cannot be
held to be a due proof of its contents. Its
execution has to be proved by admissible
evidence that is by the `evidence of those
persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of
the facts in issue&#x27;. The situation is,
however, different where the documents are
produced, they are admitted by the opposite
party, signatures on them are also admitted
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_61"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_62"> 29</span>
and they are marked thereafter as exhibits
by the Court.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_48"> <span class="citetext" data-sentiment="Pos" data-docid="1191842" id="span_63">In <a href="/doc/1191842/" id="a_43">Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P.</a> - 199 All MR (Cri)
1784, supra, the apex court in para 3 held as under :</span>
</p>
<blockquote id="blockquote_28"> &quot;There can be a presumption that testimony
of a competent witness given on oath is true,
as the opposite party can use the weapon of
cross-examination, inter alia, for rebutting the
presumption. But a dying declaration is not
a deposition in Court. It is neither made on
oath nor in the presence of an accused. Its
credence cannot be tested by cross-
</blockquote>
<blockquote id="blockquote_29"> examination. Those inherent weaknesses
attached to a dying declaration would not
justify any initial presumption to be drawn
that the dying declaration contains only the
truth.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_49"> We, therefore, respectfully agree with the Division Bench
decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Reg. v.
</p>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_64"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_65"> 30</span>
<p data-structure="Precedent" id="p_50"> Fata Adaje &amp; ors. and Calcutta High Court in the case of
the Emperor v. Samiruddin and King-Emperor v. Mathura
Thakur &amp; ors., cited supra. We do not agree with the
decisions of other High Courts taking contrary view. We,
therefore,answer question no.1 in the negative and question
no.2 in the affirmative.
</p>
<p data-structure="Conclusion" id="p_51"> 22.
Having gone through the evidence on record, we
find that the prosecution has relied upon only one piece of
evidence to prove the charge against the appellants and the
same is dying declaration (Ex.23) of deceased Sunita
Bhanse. There is no other evidence relied on by the
prosecution in support of its case. Insofar the dying
declaration (Ex.23) is concerned, the same was recorded by
Wasudeo Mahore (P.W. 4)- the Special Judicial Magistrate
on 6.7.2001. In his substantive evidence before the Court,
Wasudeo (P.W.4) deposed that after getting deceased Sunita
examined from the medical officer he was satisfied that she
was physically and mentally fit to give the statement, he
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_66"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_67"> 31</span>
recorded her dying declaration. Thereafter he read over the
said dying declaration to the patient who admitted the
same to be correctly written as per her say. Accordingly he
made an endorsement and again requested the medical
officer to examine the patient about her mental and
physical condition. It is note worthy that in his substantive
evidence before the Court he did not depose a single word
as to who were the offenders who had poured kerosene on
her person and set her on fire and in what manner. The
witness is blissfully silent about the same and the
prosecution preferred to rely upon the document of dying
declaration which was exhibited. We have held by
answering both the questions in this judgment, that the
document of dying declaration cannot be presumed to be
correct under <a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_44">S.80</a> of Evidence Act, unless proved
according to law. This is particularly so because no
presumption under<a href="/doc/1647617/" id="a_45"> S. 80</a> is available in respect of the dying
declaration. Since Wasudeo (P.W.4) did not depose a word
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_68"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_69"> 32</span>
about the name and the role of the appellants as told to
him by the deceased Sunita, in view of the statement of law
recorded by us in the foregoing part of the judgment, we
hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case and did
not discharge the initial burden of proof required to be
discharged in a criminal case. For this reason therefore we
reject the sole piece of evidence in the form of dying
declaration (Ex. 23) relied upon by the prosecution. There
is no other evidence and consequently the finding of the
trial Court about conviction on the basis of dying
declaration will have to be reversed. Thus Criminal Appeal
No. 103/03 will have to be allowed.
</p>
<p data-structure="Conclusion" id="p_52"> 23. For the reasons aforesaid, the criminal appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated
30.11.2002 made by II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Amravati, in S.T. No. 219 of 2001 is set aside. Both the
appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with <a href="/doc/37788/" id="a_46">Section 34</a> of Indian Penal Code.
</p>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_70"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_71"> 33</span>
<p data-structure="Conclusion" id="p_53"> Bail bonds of appellant no.1 shall stand cancelled.
</p>
<p data-structure="Conclusion" id="p_54"> Appellant no.2, who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if
not required in any other crime. Fine amount, if paid, be
refunded to the appellants.
</p>
<pre id="pre_3"> JUDGE JUDGE
/TA/
<span class="hidden_text" id="span_72"> ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:32:33 :::</span>
</pre>
</div>
</article>
<aside class="right_column" aria-label="Related AI tags, queries and research notes">
<h3 class="sr-only">Related AI tags, queries and research notes</h3>
<div class="translate_container">
<h4 class="sr-only">Translation</h4>
<div id="google_translate_element" aria-live="polite"></div>
<button id="translatewarn"
type="button"
aria-label="Translation accuracy warning"></button>
</div>
<nav class="category" aria-label="Top AI tags">
<h4 class="category_title">Top AI Tags</h4>
<ul class="sr-only-list">
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=tag:presumption-of-authenticity-for-documentary-evidence">presumption-of-authenticity-for-documentary-evidence</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=tag:common-intention">common-intention</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=tag:evidence-from-deceased-or-unavailable-persons">evidence-from-deceased-or-unavailable-persons</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=tag:criminal-procedure-code">criminal-procedure-code</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=tag:refreshing-memory-with-self-made-writings">refreshing-memory-with-self-made-writings</a></div></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<nav class="category" aria-label="Related user queries">
<h4 class="category_title">Related user Queries</h4>
<ul class="sr-only-list">
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=section%2080%20evidence%20act">section 80 evidence act</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=S.80%20Evidence%20Act">S.80 Evidence Act</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=who%20should%20record%20dying%20declaration%20">who should record dying declaration </a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=indian%20evidence%20act">indian evidence act</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=%22substantive%20evidence%20is%22">"substantive evidence is"</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=memory%20refresh">memory refresh</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=confession">confession</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=substantive%20evidence">substantive evidence</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=%20KEROSENE"> KEROSENE</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=judicial%20proceedings%20">judicial proceedings </a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=section%20evidance%20act">section evidance act</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=prisoners">prisoners</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=no%20evidence%20to%20prove">no evidence to prove</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=statement%20before%20die">statement before die</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=How%20to%20prove%20Statement%20">How to prove Statement </a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=Emperor%20">Emperor </a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=calcutta%20high%20court">calcutta high court</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=court%20of%20record">court of record</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=%20special%20judicial%20magistrate"> special judicial magistrate</a></div></li>
<li><div class="item_toselect"><a href="/search/?formInput=produce%20some%20document">produce some document</a></div></li>
</ul>
</nav>
</aside>
</div>
</main>
<footer class="homepage-footer">
<div class="homepage-footer-links">
<a href="/about.html">About</a>
<a href="/disclaimer.html">Disclaimer</a>
<a href="/privacy.html">Privacy Policy</a>
<a href="/members/terms/">Terms</a>
<a href="/court_case_online.html">Case Removal</a>
<a href="https://blog.indiankanoon.org">Blog</a>
<button id="share-url-btn" style="display: none;">Share URL</button>
<form method="post" action="/change_device/?device=mobile&amp;nextpage=/doc/1027578/" class="device-toggle">
<input type="hidden" name="csrfmiddlewaretoken" value="H36EQJb5UOa3HR290gong0jdDct0bn8G7ugyp0IZ0e4y7g28Ska1HLb3QdxX59k4">
<button type="submit">Mobile View</button>
</form>
</div>
</footer>
<script>
(function() {
const shareBtn = document.getElementById('share-url-btn');
if (navigator.share) {
shareBtn.style.display = 'inline-block';
shareBtn.addEventListener('click', async function() {
try {
await navigator.share({
title: document.title,
url: window.location.href
});
} catch (err) {
if (err.name !== 'AbortError') {
console.error('Error sharing:', err);
}
}
});
}
})();
</script>
<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" SRC="/static/js/jquery-3.6.1.min.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" SRC="/static/js/jquery-ui-1.13.2/jquery-ui.min.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" SRC="/static/js/pylaw/utils_v13.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" SRC="/static/js/pylaw/share_url.js"></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" SRC="/static/js/pylaw/dropdown.js"></SCRIPT>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function($) {
function ensureAutocompleteAvailable() {
if (!($.ui && $.ui.autocomplete)) {
throw new Error('jQuery UI Autocomplete plugin not loaded');
}
}
function overrideGlobalRenderer() {
$.ui.autocomplete.prototype._renderItem = function(ul, item) {
return $("<li></li>")
.append(
$("<div></div>")
.addClass("search-autocomplete-item-wrapper")
.html(item.label)
)
.appendTo(ul);
};
}
function attachAutocomplete($input) {
if (!$input.length) {
return;
}
var $form = $input.closest('form');
$input.autocomplete({
source: "/qsuggest/",
delay: 180,
minLength: 2,
appendTo: 'body',
position: {
my: "left top",
at: "left bottom+6",
collision: "flipfit"
},
classes: {
"ui-autocomplete": "search-autocomplete-list",
"ui-menu-item-wrapper": "search-autocomplete-item"
},
open: function() {
var $menu = $input.autocomplete('widget');
var offset = $input.offset();
$menu
.width($input.outerWidth())
.css({
left: offset.left,
top: offset.top + $input.outerHeight() + 6
});
$input.addClass('autocomplete-open');
},
close: function() {
$input.removeClass('autocomplete-open');
},
focus: function(event, ui) {
// Prevent the default text replacement while navigating suggestions
if (ui && ui.item) {
event.preventDefault();
}
},
select: function(event, ui) {
event.preventDefault();
if (ui && ui.item) {
$input.val(ui.item.value);
}
if ($form.length) {
$form.trigger('submit');
} else {
$('#search-form').trigger('submit');
}
}
});
}
$(document).ready(function() {
ensureAutocompleteAvailable();
overrideGlobalRenderer();
attachAutocomplete($("#search-box"));
attachAutocomplete($("#header-search-box"));
});
})(jQuery);
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://translate.google.com/translate_a/element.js?cb=googleTranslateElementInit"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function() {
$('#pdfdoc').button({icons: {primary: 'ui-icon-document'}});
$('#printdoc').button({icons: {primary: 'ui-icon-print'}});
$('#courtcopysubmit').button({icons: {primary: 'ui-icon-arrowthickstop-1-s'}});
$('#courtcopyform').submit(function(e) {
signupForDownload();
e.preventDefault();
return false;
});
$('#translatewarn').click(function(e) {
e.preventDefault();
var params = {title: 'Warning on translation', closeText: "", width: 450};
var content = '<p>The option to translate the legal documents is to overcome language barriers and for broader understanding but should not be considered as <b>authoritative text</b> for any official purpose.</p> <p>As pointed out, translation of legal texts <a href="https://twitter.com/Banbreach/status/1585206506743427073" target="_blank">may be inaccurate</a>. So beware of it when using the translate feature. Lastly, translations here are provided by Google Translate and we do not warrant its accuracy.</p>';
modify_dialog_params(params);
$('<div>').html(content).dialog(params);
});
});
function googleTranslateElementInit() {
var translateElementId = 'google_translate_element';
var translateContainer = document.getElementById(translateElementId);
if (!translateContainer) {
console.warn('Google Translate container not found; skipping widget init.');
return;
}
if (typeof google === 'undefined' || !google.translate || !google.translate.TranslateElement) {
console.error('Google Translate API failed to load');
return;
}
new google.translate.TranslateElement({pageLanguage: 'en'}, translateElementId);
function removeUnwantedText() {
var translateEl = document.getElementById(translateElementId);
if (!translateEl) {
console.warn('Google Translate element became unavailable; skipping cleanup.');
return;
}
var pattern = /(translate|powered\s+by)/gi;
var hideStyle = 'display:none;visibility:hidden;width:0;height:0;padding:0;margin:0';
var walker = document.createTreeWalker(translateEl, NodeFilter.SHOW_TEXT, null, false);
var node;
while (node = walker.nextNode()) {
if (pattern.test(node.textContent)) {
node.textContent = node.textContent.replace(pattern, '').replace(/\s+/g, ' ').trim();
}
}
translateEl.querySelectorAll('*').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.querySelector('select') || el.querySelector('img')) return;
var text = el.textContent || '';
if (pattern.test(text) && text.trim()) {
el.textContent = text.replace(pattern, '').trim();
if (!el.textContent.trim()) {
el.style.cssText = hideStyle;
}
}
});
}
setTimeout(removeUnwantedText, 200);
}
</script>
<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript" SRC="/static/js/pylaw/structure_v3.js"></SCRIPT>
<script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
$('#translatewarn').button({icons: {primary: 'ui-icon-info'}, text: false});
$('.searchbox_top a').button();
$('#casemonitor').button({icon: 'ui-icon-alert'}).click({
valid_ag: '',
is_valid: '',
is_auth: 'False',
is_agreement: '',
headline: 'judgments that cite this document. Query alert for'
}, registerEmailAlert);
});
</script>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/static/css/mini-chatbot.css">
<script type="text/javascript">
// Authentication context for chatbot
window.is_auth = false;
// Document context for chatbot
window.documentContext = {
tid: 1027578,
title: "Deorao S/O Sonbaji Bhalerao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 June, 2008",
url: window.location.href,
isFragment: false
};
// Point the widget to the existing API endpoints
</script>
<script src="/static/chat/vendor/js/purify.min.js"></script>
<script src="/static/chat/vendor/js/markdown-it.min.js"></script>
<script type="module" src="/static/chat/js/modules/shared/markdown.js"></script>
<script src="/static/js/mini-chatbot-widget.js"></script>
<script>(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9c56a8f74b941f8f',t:'MTc2OTY2ODAwNw=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();</script></body>
</html>