Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SANJAY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
8 March 2007
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 644 · 2007 INSC 252
Also cited as
  • (2007) 9 SCC 148 (10 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2007 SC 1368 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Paragraph 1

Leave granted.

p. 645, margin F

Paragraph 2

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dated 17.8.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 1996.

p. 645, margin F

Paragraph 3

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

p. 645, margin G

Paragraph 4

The facts of the case are that the father of the appellant and the father of Seema were serving in Forest Department. They were also related. The appellant and Seema fell in love with each other. However, since they were within the prohibited degrees of relationship, the parents of both the appellant as well as Seema were against their marriage. Hence the appellant eloped from their parental houses and got married at Kato! marriage they came back to Mouda. For some time, they resided the appellant's parents, but after intervention of some relatives, reside with the parents of the appellant. However, they could for long and they again started residing separately in a rented by one Sunil Anandrao Nimje.

pp. 645–646, margin G

Paragraph 5

The appellant has a shop of electronic goods and the work of repairing T.V. and giving cable connections. front of the rented premises.

p. 646, margin B

Paragraph 6

On 21.2.1992 the appellant and Seema were blessed Mandar. However, it is alleged that the relations between Seema did not remain cordial. It was noticed by Seema returned late at night and that too in a drunken state. neglected his business. He started neglecting his wife Seema Seema complained to her parents by sending them letters.

p. 646, margin A

Paragraph 7

On the fateful night intervening between 28.12.1994 it is alleged that the appellant returned home in the midnight state. There was a quarrel between him and Seema with the poured kerosene on her person and set herself ablaze. She taken to the hospital of Dr. Chandak in Nagpur and thereafter Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur.

p. 646, margin D

Paragraph 8

On 29.12.1994 in the noon, H.C. Pimpalkar (PW-6) declaration of Seema (Ex.5 I). On the same day in the afternoon, Executive Magistrate (PW-9) recorded her .dying declaration next d11y i.e. on 30. 12. I 994, H.C. Nirgulkar (PW-4) recorded (Ex.40). On 5. I. I 995, Seema succumbed to the burn injuries. examination revealed that the burns were 79% and the septicimea as a result of infected bums.

p. 646, margin E

Paragraph 9

Initially offences under Section 498-A read with were registered at P.S. Mouda and subsequently offence under 34 ofl.P.C. was added.

p. 646, margin F

Paragraph 10

The trial court after considering the evidence held have been proved against the appellant but acquitted the and mother.

p. 646, margin G

Paragraph 11

Against the said judgment the appellant filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the High Court and hence this appeal by special leave.

p. 647, margin A

Paragraph 12

In our opinion this appeal deserves to be allowed by giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The only evidence against the appellant are the three alleged dying declarations of the appellant's wife Seema. In the first dying declaration Seema stated that while she was pumping the stove it suddenly burst and her saree caught fire. She shouted loudly and then her husband rushed towards her and extinguished the fire by pouring water on her. This is the first dying declaration and nothing has been alleged against the appellant in it. Rather it shows that the appellant tried to save his wife Seema. In the subsequent dying declaration Seema is said to have stated that she poured kerosene on her in person and set herself ablaze because she was angry with her husband.

p. 647, margin A

Paragraph 13

The prosecution version is that the subsequent dying declarations made by Seema alleging that she committed suicide because there used to be quarrels between her and her husband (the appellant) are corroborated by two letters alleged to have been written by Seema to her parents. The first letter (Ex.28) appears to be dated 24.1.1994. It shows that her husband (the appellant) does not behave properly with her, he daily returns home late at night in a drunken state and because of it there used to be quarrels between her and the appellant. She also expressed in the said letter that the appellant was also willing to give her divorce. Seema expressed that she felt repentful as she married the appellant of her own will. She further expressed that she felt no charm in leading such life.

p. 647, margin C

Paragraph 14

Another letter (Ex.29) is dated 26.7.1994 i.e. about five months before the incident of suicide. The said letter reiterates the same state of affairs mentioned in the earlier letter (Ex.28). The evidence of PW-I Vimal (the mother of Seema) and PW-2 Wamanrao (the father of Seema) corroborates the . unhappiness faced by Seema. Hence it is alleged that the so called first written dying declaration (Ex.51) would not render the voluminous evidence untrustworthy.

p. 647, margin E

Paragraph 15

The trial court, as well as High Court, were of the view that the evidence on record shows there was cruelty on the part of the appellant which drove his wife to suicide.

p. 647, margin G

Paragraph 16

In our opinion in view of the different dying declarations it would A not ne safe to uphold the convicfron -Ot the appellant and we have to give him the. benefit of doubt. It cannoti>e said in this ·case that the prosecution has proved the appellant's guilt under Section 306 l.P.C. of abetting the suicide beyond reasonable doubt.

pp. 647–648, margin G

Paragraph 17

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and trial court are quashed. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case. RP. Appeal allowed.

p. 648