Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Suresh Devidas Narote, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No. 179 of 2010, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, primarily contending that the prosecution case rested on two written dying declarations that were unreliable due to material inconsistencies and suspicious thumb impressions. The deceased, Seemabai, wife of the appellant, was admitted to Civil Hospital Nashik on 25 July 2010 with burn injuries. PSI Anand Magar (PW4) recorded her first statement on 26 July 2010 at 1.05 a.m., which became the first dying declaration (Exhibit-16). She alleged that her husband had manhandled her, poured kerosene on her, and set her ablaze because he disliked her black complexion. Later, a Special Executive Magistrate, Ashok Deshpande (PW3), recorded a second dying declaration (Exhibit-14). In that statement, she gave a different version: that after a quarrel, her husband poured kerosene on her shoulder, and though she snatched the matchbox from him, he still set her ablaze; she then extinguished the flames by pouring water on herself. She also disclosed that she could not bear a child and that her husband asked her to immolate herself. The deceased succumbed to septicemic shock due to 55% burns on 30 July 2010. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the father of the deceased (PW2), who stated that he saw burn injuries on all fingers of both hands of the deceased. The autopsy doctor (PW5) deposed that the ridges on both thumbs had disappeared. The appellant argued that the thumb impressions on both dying declarations were clear and distinct, which was impossible given the burn injuries to the thumbs, and therefore the thumb impressions were interpolated, rendering the dying declarations unreliable. The court examined the two dying declarations and found that the first one (Exhibit-16) did not have the thumb mark attested by the officer as being that of the victim. It also noted that the prelude to the incident, the incident itself, and the postlude differed materially between the two statements. The court observed that the narration in Exhibit-14—where the deceased snatched the matchbox yet the accused still set her ablaze—seemed improbable and raised doubt about her oriented state of mind. The court referred to the principle that dying declarations must be tested for truthfulness and correctness and that in cases of multiple written dying declarations, all must be consistent in material aspects; if acceptance of one falsifies the other, both must be rejected. It relied on Suresh s/o Arjun Dodorkar (Sonar) v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 All MR (Cri) 1599, and State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur, AIR 1998 SC 2809, where clear thumb impressions on a burn victim's dying declaration led to acquittal. The court also noted that the dying declarations were not corroborated by cogent evidence. The available text ends mid-sentence before the final operative order; however, the court's analysis clearly pointed toward the unreliability of the dying declarations and the consequent unsustainability of the conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Multiple Dying Declarations - Requirement of Consistency - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court examined two written dying declarations (Exhibit-14 and Exhibit-16) which had material variances in the prelude, incident, and postlude of the occurrence. Relying on Suresh s/o Arjun Dodorkar (Sonar) v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 All MR (Cri) 1599, the court observed that in cases of multiple dying declarations, all must be consistent in material aspects and courts cannot pick and choose; acceptance of one would render the other false, making both unreliable (Paras 12-14). B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Thumb Impression Reliability - Burn Injuries to Thumbs - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court noted that the thumb mark on the first dying declaration (Exhibit-16) was not attested as being that of the victim, and that clear ridges/impressions on the declarations conflicted with evidence from PW2 and PW5 that the deceased's fingers and thumbs were burnt. Relying on State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur, AIR 1998 SC 2809, the court found it difficult to hold that the thumb marks were those of the deceased (Paras 11-15). C) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Corroboration and State of Mind - Oriented State of Mind - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court observed that the narration in the second dying declaration (Exhibit-14) that the deceased snatched the matchbox from the accused yet he still set her ablaze was improbable and raised doubt about her oriented state of mind; the dying declarations were not corroborated by cogent and convincing evidence (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC could be sustained on the basis of two written dying declarations (Exhibit-14 and Exhibit-16) that contained material inconsistencies regarding the incident, and whether the clear thumb impressions on the declarations were reliable given evidence that the deceased's thumbs were burnt and ridges disappeared.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and correctness
- Multiple written dying declarations must be consistent in all material aspects
- Courts cannot pick and choose any one dying declaration
- Acceptance of one dying declaration cannot falsify another
- Clear thumb impressions on a dying declaration of a burn victim whose thumbs were burnt raise doubt on authenticity
- Dying declarations require corroboration by cogent and convincing evidence in such circumstances
- Prosecution must prove declarant was in an oriented state of mind
