Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to the death of Parveen, who died due to burn injuries. The appellants, her husband Shahrukh Salim Pathan, mother-in-law Aminabee, and sister-in-law Samina, were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for her murder. The prosecution relied on two dying declarations recorded on 28-06-2014. The first dying declaration, recorded by PW1 Gorakshnath Ghugarkar, Special Executive Magistrate, stated that Samina poured kerosene, Aminabee caught hold of her, and Shahrukh instigated and abused her, and Samina set her on fire. The second dying declaration, recorded by a police officer, was vague and did not name the accused or specify roles. The trial court convicted all three based on these declarations. On appeal, the High Court found that the two dying declarations were materially inconsistent. The first declaration attributed specific roles to each accused, while the second was general and did not implicate all accused. The medical evidence did not corroborate the manner of burning alleged. There was no independent eyewitness. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court emphasized that a dying declaration must be consistent and reliable, and when there are contradictions, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistency - Two dying declarations recorded on same day contained material contradictions regarding role of each accused - First declaration attributed specific roles to each accused, second declaration was vague and did not name all accused - Held that such inconsistency creates doubt and cannot form sole basis for conviction (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Dying Declaration - Corroboration - Case based on circumstantial evidence and dying declarations - Medical evidence did not support the manner of burning alleged in dying declarations - No independent witness to corroborate dying declarations - Held that prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 13-15). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Section 374 CrPC - Appellate court can re-appreciate evidence - High Court found that trial court erred in relying on inconsistent dying declarations - Held that conviction is liable to be set aside and appellants entitled to acquittal (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC based on two dying declarations is sustainable when the declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- conviction cannot be based on contradictory dying declarations
- benefit of doubt to accused
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 374 CrPC
