Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Kavita Shankar Harale, was convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Saku Kishan Kurale by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze, and for house-trespass to commit the offence. The prosecution case was that the deceased owed ₹40,000 to the appellant, and on the day of the incident, when the deceased offered to pay ₹500 per week, the appellant refused and set her on fire. The conviction was based primarily on a dying declaration recorded by Prabhakar Tarale (PW4), a police constable, and the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses, Sunita Jadhav (PW9) and Shobha Satpute (PW10). The High Court found that the dying declaration was not recorded in question-answer form, was not attested by any witness, and was not corroborated by medical evidence or other circumstances. The eyewitnesses were not named in the FIR and their testimony was inconsistent. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive of debt. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The dying declaration recorded by PW4 was not in question-answer form and was not attested by any witness present at the time of recording - The court held that such a dying declaration is not reliable and cannot form the sole basis of conviction without corroboration (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Motive - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecution alleged that the deceased owed ₹40,000 to the appellant, but no documentary evidence was produced to prove the debt - The court held that failure to prove motive creates doubt in the prosecution case (Para 13). C) Criminal Law - House Trespass - Section 449 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The conviction under Section 449 IPC was based on the same unreliable dying declaration and lack of independent evidence - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration recorded by PW4 is reliable and sufficient to convict the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC and house-trespass under Section 449 IPC.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No. 116/2016 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be recorded in question-answer form
- Dying declaration must be corroborated if suspicious
- Motive must be proved in circumstantial evidence cases
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
