Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, in Sessions Case No.31 of 1999, which acquitted the respondent, Kailash Sahadu Somvanshi, of offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case of the prosecution was that the respondent, who was the brother-in-law (nandoi) of the deceased Sunita, had subjected her to cruelty by suspecting her chastity and alleging that she could not conceive a child. On 28th February 1999, at about 7:30 pm, the respondent allegedly went to Sunita's house, asked her to obtain a divorce, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire. Sunita sustained 70% burn injuries and was taken to the Civil Hospital, Nashik. Her first dying declaration, recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate Shri Gholap (PW-11), implicated the respondent. However, a second dying declaration, recorded on 2nd March 1999 by Special Judicial Magistrate Shri Wagh (PW-12) at the request of the deceased's brother Sharad Godse, exonerated the respondent, stating that she had set herself on fire accidentally. The trial court acquitted the respondent, giving him the benefit of doubt due to the inconsistency between the two dying declarations and the lack of corroboration. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the two dying declarations were contradictory and that there was no other reliable evidence to support the prosecution's version. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Dying declaration - Inconsistency - The court considered whether the dying declarations of the deceased were reliable and consistent. The first dying declaration implicated the accused, but the second dying declaration exonerated him. The court held that in the absence of corroboration and due to material inconsistencies, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (Paras 1-17) B) Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Murder - Dying declaration - The prosecution's case rested on dying declarations. The court found that the two dying declarations were contradictory and not corroborated by other evidence. The acquittal was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-17) C) Criminal Law - Section 498-A IPC - Cruelty - The charge of cruelty was also not proved as the dying declarations were inconsistent and there was no independent evidence of harassment. (Paras 1-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was proper in light of the dying declarations and other evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, in Sessions Case No.31 of 1999 is upheld.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Dying declaration
- Corroboration
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- Inconsistency in dying declarations
- Benefit of doubt
