Relying on consistent oral dying declarations, voluntary extra-judicial confession, and corroborating forensic evidence, the Bombay High Court has upheld conviction of the husband under Section 302 IPC for stabbing his wife to death. The Court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through a combination of direct ocular testimony, consistent oral dying declarations, voluntary extra-judicial confession, and corroborating circumstantial evidence. The court relied on the principle that a dying declaration, if true and voluntary, can be the sole basis of conviction without requiring further corroboration.
The court further held that an extra-judicial confession, though a weak piece of evidence, can be relied upon if it is voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by other prosecution evidence. The court distinguished the judgments cited by the appellant’s counsel, holding that the present case was not one resting solely on circumstantial evidence but was supported by direct evidence including the testimony of the child eye-witness. The court also held that the failure to determine the blood group of the deceased due to disintegration of serum does not prove fatal to the prosecution’s case when other credible evidence establishes the guilt of the accused.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat upheld the credibility of the minor son of the appellant who deposed that his father had dealt a knife blow on the stomach and back of his mother, finding no trace of tutoring and noting that the testimony withstood cross-examination without any contradictions. Further, the Court held that the oral dying declarations made by the deceased to three different witnesses were found to be consistent, voluntary, and free from embellishment, with the court holding that such declarations can form the sole basis of conviction without requiring further corroboration.
The court found that the confession made by the appellant to his landlord, admitting the quarrel with his wife, was voluntary and corroborated by the appellant’s own admissions under Section 313 CrPC, making it a reliable piece of evidence despite being inherently weak. At the same time, the Court held that the failure to determine the blood group of the deceased due to haemolysis does not weaken the prosecution’s case when other credible evidence, including matching of the appellant’s blood group on the recovered knife and clothes, corroborates his involvement.
Lastly, the recovery of blood-stained clothes of the appellant, the knife identified by the doctor as the weapon, and the appellant’s own admissions regarding his presence and injuries on his left hand collectively reinforced the direct evidence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt, concluded the Court.
Also read SC Refuses Plea Seeking Ethanol Percentage Disclosure at Petrol Pumps
Briefly, the case arises out of a criminal appeal filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mangaon. The appellant, Abdul Shakur Walesab Nadaf, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murdering his wife Mehjabin Abdul Shakur Nadaf, and was sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and an order to pay Rs. 40,000/- to the sons of the deceased after the appeal period.
The prosecution case was that on May 04, 2016, the brother of the deceased received a phone call from a maternal cousin informing him that the appellant had stabbed his wife. The deceased was found lying in a pool of blood outside the house with severe injuries, including ruptured intestines, and was shifted to Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, where she succumbed to her injuries on May 05, 2016. An FIR was initially registered under Section 307 IPC, and after the death, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the minor son of the appellant as an eye-witness, the brother of the deceased, the landlord, the cousin sister, the panch witness, the investigating officer, and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem.
