Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of Sandeep @ Jounty Mahadeo Jadhav and another for the murder of Dhananjay Rajput. The prosecution case was that on 23/03/2014, the deceased was sweeping the floor of a liquor shop when the appellant No.1 asked him to move aside, leading to an altercation. The appellant No.1 called the appellant No.2, and together they attacked the deceased with a knife, causing fatal injuries. The deceased died on 29/03/2014 due to septicemia. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellant No.1 was also convicted under Section 504 IPC. The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the dying declarations were unreliable and inconsistent. The High Court examined the dying declarations and found that they were not consistent with each other and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The court held that the dying declarations could not form the sole basis of conviction. The court also noted that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Value - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The court examined the reliability of multiple dying declarations made by the deceased. The dying declarations were found to be inconsistent with each other and with the medical evidence. The court held that a dying declaration must be consistent and reliable to form the sole basis of conviction. In this case, the dying declarations were not consistent and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. (Paras 1-24) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Section 302 read with 34 IPC - The court considered the applicability of Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants acted with common intention to cause the death of the deceased. However, due to the unreliable dying declarations, the court found that the common intention was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was not sustainable. (Paras 1-24) C) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - The court also considered the charge under Section 306 IPC. However, the court found that the evidence did not establish that the appellants abetted the suicide of the deceased. The court held that the conviction under Section 306 IPC was not sustainable. (Paras 1-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 504 IPC are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. They are directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- Corroboration
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
