Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Samadhan S/o Pandit Chaudhari, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, on 8th September 2015 in Sessions Case No.42 of 2012 for offences under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine for murder, and one year rigorous imprisonment for causing hurt. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Bombay High Court. The case involved the death of his wife Sangita due to burn injuries. Three dying declarations were recorded: Exhibit-34 and 41 by the Naib Tahsildar, and Exhibit-73 by a police head constable, which was treated as the FIR. The appellant argued that the dying declarations were inconsistent with each other regarding the cause of the burns and the role of the appellant. The State supported the conviction. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the dying declarations contained material inconsistencies and could not be relied upon to sustain the conviction. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Inconsistency - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 323 - The court examined whether the conviction based on three dying declarations (Exhibits 34, 41, and 73) was sustainable when they contained material inconsistencies regarding the cause of burns and the role of the accused. The court held that when dying declarations are inconsistent, it is unsafe to base a conviction without corroboration. (Paras 1-3) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The court considered the principle that a dying declaration must be consistent and reliable. In this case, the dying declarations recorded by different authorities contradicted each other on whether the burns were accidental or caused by the accused. The court held that such inconsistencies create doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code based on multiple dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent with each other.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- inconsistency
- conviction unsafe
- benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
