Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that on 22nd May, 2001, at about 1:00 am, respondent No. 1 brought the deceased (husband of the complainant) to his house with a head injury, claiming it was an accident. The deceased later told his wife (PW1) that on 21st May, 2001, at about 12:00 midnight, respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2, and others had assaulted him. The deceased succumbed to injuries, and a dying declaration was recorded. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the dying declaration unreliable and the prosecution evidence inconsistent. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and held that the dying declaration was not recorded when the deceased was in a fit state of mind, as he had suffered severe head injuries and was not certified fit by a doctor. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's findings were not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Reliability - The deceased sustained head injuries and was not in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration; the declaration was recorded without certification of fitness by a doctor and was not corroborated by other evidence. Held that the dying declaration is unreliable and cannot form the sole basis for conviction (Paras 1-15). B) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The appellate court can interfere with an acquittal only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. Held that the trial court's findings were plausible and based on evidence, hence no interference warranted (Paras 1-15). C) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecution relied on last seen theory and motive, but the evidence was weak and inconsistent. Held that the chain of circumstances was not complete to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is sustainable in law, and whether the dying declaration of the deceased is reliable and can form the sole basis for conviction.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 23rd September, 2002, is upheld.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be recorded when the deceased is in a fit state of mind
- Dying declaration must be free from tutoring and corroborated by other evidence
- Acquittal can be reversed only if findings are perverse or unreasonable
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
