Facts: Doli Ledha Ravidas was convicted by the District Judge and Sessions Court at Thane for the murder of Vasudev under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case was that the deceased, Vasudev, was the elder brother of the informant and worked in a textile factory. The accused, Doli Ravidas, had illicit relations with Vasudev's wife, leading to quarrels. On 13/01/2017, Vasudev's brother heard shouts and found Vasudev injured, who stated that Doli had assaulted him with a knife. Vasudev later died in the hospital.
Procedural Posture: The present Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2021 was filed by Doli Ledha Ravidas challenging the judgment and order dated 31/3/2021 passed by the District Judge and Sessions Court, Thane, which convicted him under Section 302 IPC.
Issue: Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record, particularly the dying declaration of the deceased, and whether the recovery of the knife is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, despite not being sealed when sent for medical opinion?
Holding: The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the Appellant.
Reasoning: The Court found the dying declaration of the deceased to be "true and free from any embellishment". The Court noted that the deceased had the "first opportunity" to identify his assailant and did so without hesitation. The Court also considered the motive for the crime, stemming from the Appellant's illicit relationship with the deceased's wife. While the recovery of the knife was not considered reliable due to it not being sealed, the Court emphasized that the dying declaration alone was sufficient for conviction. The Court also addressed the Appellant's defense, finding it improbable and inconsistent with the evidence. The Court cited several precedents, including Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar and Uttam vs. The State of Maharashtra, to support the principle that a dying declaration, if reliable, can be the sole basis for conviction. The court also noted that the accused had injuries on his person, and his explanation for those injuries was not believable.