Signing you in

Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V Shirsat noted that one of the couple’s sons, who was studying in Class 2 and had allegedly witnessed the incident, clearly identified his father as the person who stabbed his mother and also identified the knife used in the attack before the court.

The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the man challenging the August 2018 conviction order, under which he was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC, fined Rs 50,000 and directed to pay Rs 40,000 to his sons after the appeal period.

“The basic premise of the law on dying declaration is, ‘nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire’, i.e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of such a statement. Thus, the oral dying declarations made to prosecution witnesses 1 (woman’s brother), 2 (woman’s landlord) and 3 (woman’s cousin) appear to be true, voluntary and devoid of tutoring,” the August 28 order read.

The prosecution claimed that on May 4, 2016, the woman’s brother approached the police station in connection with an assault on her. He informed the police that at around 6.30 am, he received a phone call from his maternal cousin, who told him that his sister’s husband had stabbed her and that she was sitting on the staircase in front of the cousin’s house.

He claimed that he found his sister injured when he reached her matrimonial home and later shifted her to the hospital, where she succumbed to injuries the next day. The trial court later convicted the husband of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment besides imposing a fine of Rs 50,000 and ordering to pay Rs 40,000 to his sons. Aggrieved, he approached the high court with this appeal.

The court noted the son’s statement that at the time of the incident, he was in the house with his mother, brother and father, and that he was sleeping. The boy further added that his father had stabbed his mother on the stomach and back using a knife.

The man’s counsel, advocate Valmiky Narvekar, argued that there was no eyewitness to the incident. He claimed that apart from the minor son, no other witness was present at the time of the incident.

He argued that the usage of the alleged weapon by the husband to attack his wife was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was also submitted that the wife’s dying declaration to her brother, naming her husband as the assailant, while being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, was unreliable and should not be considered.

On the contrary, assistant public prosecutor Sharmila Kaushik argued that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court rightly convicted him. She added that the claim that the knife seized was not sent for forensic examination is incorrect.

The high court pointed out that the family, including the wife and her sons, were residing together at the time of the incident and held, “What is of utmost importance is that prosecution witness 4 (son) has categorically and unequivocally deposed that the appellant (father) had dealt a knife blow on the stomach and back of the deceased (mother)”.

The court found that the oral dying declarations made to various witnesses suggested that the woman had “clearly, coherently and cogently” narrated the incident and also remained consistent in naming her husband.

It found nothing on record to conclude or harbour a reasonable doubt that the wife could have been tutored. “Additionally, this court also does not find that the dying declarations are a manifestation of fiction or a product of imagination of the mind of the deceased,” it stated.

The court pointed out that the woman was in a position to speak till they reached the hospital, as claimed by the brother, and therefore her narration to the three witnesses is natural and did not indicate tutoring.