Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Chandrakant Vishwanath Solas, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 10.07.2017 in Sessions Case No.32/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from the death of his wife, Madhuri, who suffered burn injuries on 08.11.2014. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, under the influence of liquor, abused and assaulted the deceased, and when she expressed her desire to die, he ignited a matchstick and threw it on her after she poured kerosene on herself. The deceased succumbed to her injuries. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Bombay High Court. The court examined two dying declarations made by the deceased: one recorded by ASI Narayan Butte (PW1) at 7.15 p.m. on 08.11.2014, and another recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The court found material inconsistencies between the two declarations. In the first declaration, the deceased stated that the appellant ignited the matchstick and threw it on her, while in the second declaration, she stated that she herself caught fire due to the stove. The court held that such inconsistency creates doubt about the prosecution's case. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine the neighbour Abedabi, who extinguished the fire, and other independent witnesses. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistency - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 498-A - The court examined two dying declarations of the deceased which were contradictory regarding the role of the accused. The first declaration stated that the accused ignited the matchstick and threw it on her, while the second declaration stated that she herself caught fire due to the stove. The court held that such inconsistency creates doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-20) B) Criminal Law - Conviction - Benefit of Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 498-A - The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistent dying declarations and lack of corroborative evidence. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. (Paras 1-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations made by the deceased are reliable and consistent enough to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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 when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
