Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original accused Nos. 2 and 4, were convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302, 498-A read with 34 IPC for the dowry death of Maya, wife of accused No.1. The prosecution case was that Maya was married to accused No.1 on 18 December 2007 and had a daughter. On 14 April 2013, she suffered burn injuries and was admitted to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. Two dying declarations were recorded on 15 April 2013: the first by a Special Judicial Magistrate between 3.00-3.30 p.m., in which Maya stated that she caught fire accidentally while cooking and that her husband and in-laws were not responsible; the second by ASI Abdul Kalim Ibrahim Raje around 4.15 p.m., in which she implicated her husband and in-laws for setting her on fire due to dowry demands. The trial court relied on the second dying declaration and convicted the appellants. The High Court, on appeal, examined the reliability of the two dying declarations. It noted that the first dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate in the presence of a doctor, who certified that Maya was conscious and fit to make the statement. The second dying declaration was recorded by a police officer without any certification of fitness. The court found that the second dying declaration was inconsistent with the first and lacked corroboration from other evidence. The medical evidence did not support the theory of homicidal burning. The court held that when there are two inconsistent dying declarations, the one which is more reliable and corroborated should be accepted. Since the first dying declaration was consistent with the medical evidence and the circumstances, and the second was unreliable, the conviction based on the second dying declaration was unsustainable. The court also noted that there was no other evidence of cruelty or dowry demand. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistency - Two dying declarations recorded on same day - First declaration exonerated accused, second implicated them - Held that when there are two inconsistent dying declarations, the one which is more reliable and corroborated by other evidence should be accepted; in this case, the second declaration was found unreliable due to lack of corroboration and the first was consistent with medical evidence (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Murder - Dowry Death - Circumstantial Evidence - Dying declaration alone cannot be basis for conviction if it is inconsistent and uncorroborated - Held that conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of a dying declaration that is not free from doubt and is contradicted by another dying declaration (Paras 16-20). C) Criminal Law - Section 498-A IPC - Cruelty - Demand of Dowry - Allegations of harassment for dowry - Dying declaration not mentioning dowry demand - Held that in the absence of any other evidence of cruelty, conviction under Section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained (Paras 21-23).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 498-A read with 34 IPC based on the second dying declaration is sustainable when the first dying declaration exonerates them and there is inconsistency between the two declarations.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- reliability
- inconsistency
- corroboration
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 32
