Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rama Ghongde, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his son Ashutosh by poisoning. The prosecution case was that the appellant, addicted to liquor and not working, frequently quarreled with his wife Vithabai. On 18-12-2013, after a morning quarrel, the appellant called his wife and said he would finish the family. The deceased and his brother Anirudha returned home from school and found the appellant consuming poison. The appellant gave the same poison to his sons, and all three consumed it. The appellant and Anirudha survived, but Ashutosh died. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the dying declaration of the deceased and circumstantial evidence. The High Court held that the dying declaration was unreliable as it was recorded by a police officer without medical certification of fitness. The circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing to murder. The court found that the appellant had no intention to kill his son; the act was a result of a quarrel and the appellant's own consumption of poison. The death was caused by accidental fall after consuming poison. The court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone (about 5 years) and directing his release.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Dying declaration recorded by police officer without certification by doctor that deceased was conscious and fit to make statement - Held that such dying declaration cannot be relied upon without corroboration (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 IPC - Chain of Circumstances - Prosecution failed to prove complete chain of circumstances pointing to guilt of accused - Motive of quarrel over work insufficient to establish murder - Held that conviction cannot be based on weak circumstantial evidence (Paras 13-15). C) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - Section 304 Part II IPC - Knowledge but No Intention - Death caused by accidental fall after consumption of poison - Accused had knowledge that his act of consuming poison could cause death but no intention to kill son - Held that offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder of his son is sustainable based on circumstantial evidence and dying declaration.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone (about 5 years). Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 304 Part II IPC
- Section 299 IPC
- Section 300 IPC
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
- circumstantial evidence
- dying declaration
- motive
- intention
- knowledge
- culpable homicide not amounting to murder
