Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Lata Shivram Anklu, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.234/2014 for the murder of Bhumya Ramyya Yalmadu under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 12.12.2013, the appellant demanded Rs.600 from the deceased, who gave her Rs.100 and promised the balance later. Annoyed, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set him ablaze. The deceased sustained 85% burns and died the next day. The conviction was based primarily on two dying declarations: one recorded by the medical officer (PW-1) and another recorded by a police officer (PW-6) treated as FIR. However, the two declarations were contradictory. In the first declaration, the deceased stated that the appellant poured kerosene and set him on fire. In the second declaration, the deceased stated that he caught fire accidentally while lighting a stove. The appellant argued that the dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable, and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the two dying declarations were contradictory and irreconcilable. The medical officer did not certify the deceased's fitness to make the declaration. There was no independent corroboration. The court held that when dying declarations are inconsistent, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, directing her release unless required in another case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Inconsistent Dying Declarations - The appellant was convicted for murder based on two dying declarations. The first declaration stated the deceased was set on fire by the appellant, while the second declaration stated the deceased caught fire accidentally. The court held that when dying declarations are contradictory and not corroborated by other evidence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-15) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - A dying declaration must be consistent and trustworthy. In this case, the two dying declarations were contradictory, and the medical officer did not certify the deceased's fitness to make the declaration. The court held that such a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis for conviction. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 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 appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Conviction cannot be based on contradictory dying declarations
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
