Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sk. Javed Sk. Gulam Rasul, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 22nd November 2016 in Sessions Case No.162 of 2014 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was the husband of the deceased Surayya, who died due to burn injuries sustained on 25th February 2014. The prosecution case was that the appellant and his mother subjected Surayya to cruelty for dowry and that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The deceased was admitted to Ghati Hospital with 49% burns. Two dying declarations were recorded: one by the Executive Magistrate (PW-8) at 2.05 p.m. on 26th February 2014, and another by the police. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate stated that the deceased caught fire accidentally while cooking, whereas the police dying declaration alleged that the appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the police dying declaration. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court found that the two dying declarations were contradictory and that the Executive Magistrate's dying declaration was more reliable as it was recorded in the presence of a doctor who certified the deceased was conscious. The police dying declaration was recorded later and was not corroborated by any other evidence. The father of the deceased (PW-3) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The medical evidence did not conclusively prove that the burns were homicidal. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistent Dying Declarations - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 498-A - The court examined whether the dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the police were consistent and reliable. The dying declarations were found to be contradictory regarding the cause of burns, one stating accidental and the other alleging the husband poured kerosene. The court held that when there are two inconsistent dying declarations, the one that is more reliable and corroborated by other evidence should be accepted. In the absence of corroboration, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 498-A IPC - Cruelty - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498-A - The court considered the allegation of cruelty for dowry. The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry shortly before her death. The dying declarations did not mention dowry demands, and the father of the deceased did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the conviction under Section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained. (Paras 16-18) C) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court analyzed whether the death was homicidal or accidental. The medical evidence showed 49% burns, but the cause of burns was not clearly established. The dying declarations were contradictory, and there was no other evidence to prove that the appellant poured kerosene. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 19-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- conviction cannot be based on contradictory dying declarations
- benefit of doubt must be given to accused
