Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Balaji @ Balu Whitener Solanke, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Nanded for the murder of Arun Dilip Sonkamble under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 24 October 2014, the victim was returning home when the appellant and three other accused persons demanded money, poured kerosene on him, and set him on fire. The victim sustained burn injuries and died on 29 October 2014. The FIR was based on the victim's statement recorded by a police officer in the hospital, which was treated as a dying declaration. Subsequently, a Judicial Magistrate recorded another dying declaration. The trial court relied on these dying declarations to convict the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the dying declarations and found material inconsistencies between them. In the first dying declaration to the police, the victim stated that all four accused poured kerosene and set him on fire. In the second dying declaration to the Magistrate, he stated that only the appellant poured kerosene and set him on fire, and the other accused were not present. The court also noted that the victim's mother and brother, who were present at the hospital, did not support the prosecution case. The medical evidence indicated that the burns were not consistent with the victim's account of extinguishing the fire by lying in a culvert. The court held that the dying declarations were unreliable and lacked corroboration. The court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Value - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Dying declaration can be sole basis of conviction if it is reliable, voluntary, and free from tutoring - However, when there are multiple dying declarations with material inconsistencies, the court must scrutinize them carefully and seek corroboration - Held that the dying declarations in this case were inconsistent regarding the role of the appellant and the presence of other accused, and thus not reliable without corroboration (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on dying declarations - Inconsistencies - The victim's dying declarations to the police, magistrate, and family members contained contradictions about who poured kerosene and set him on fire - The medical evidence did not support the manner of burning alleged - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was set aside (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 13/2015 on 18.02.2016 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- Corroboration
- Inconsistencies
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 32 Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
