Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prakash Pandurang Pawar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, for offences under Sections 302, 498-A and 506 IPC for allegedly setting his wife Laxmi on fire. The couple had been married for over 12 years and had seven children. On 13-9-1997, following a quarrel, the appellant allegedly poured kerosene on his wife and set her ablaze. He then extinguished the fire and took her to Bhabha Hospital. Two dying declarations were recorded shortly after admission: one by Special Executive Officer Jayesh Jani and another by Police Officer Kiran Avchar, both stating that the burns were caused by an accidental stove fire. Later that day, after the victim's parents arrived, the victim made an oral dying declaration to her mother implicating the appellant. Subsequently, two more dying declarations were recorded, attributing the incident to the appellant. The trial court relied on the later declarations and convicted the appellant. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the contradictions between the two sets of dying declarations. The court noted that the initial declarations were recorded when the victim was in a fit state of mind and were consistent with the spot panchanama, which found no evidence of kerosene. The later declarations were made after the victim's mother urged her to tell the truth in the name of God. The court held that the prosecution failed to explain why the victim initially exonerated the appellant and later implicated him. The court concluded that the initial dying declarations were voluntary and reliable, and the subsequent ones were influenced. Consequently, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt, his conviction was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Contradictory Dying Declarations - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 498-A, 506 - The court considered the admissibility and reliability of two sets of dying declarations: the first set recorded by the Special Executive Officer and police officer attributing the burn injuries to accidental stove fire, and the second set recorded later attributing the injuries to the husband pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. The court held that the initial dying declarations were voluntary and consistent, and the subsequent declarations were influenced by the victim's mother. The prosecution failed to explain the contradiction, and the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Conviction - Benefit of Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 498-A, 506 - The court held that when there are two sets of dying declarations, one exonerating the accused and the other implicating him, and the earlier declarations are not satisfactorily explained, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 498-A and 506 IPC can be sustained when there are contradictory dying declarations and the initial declarations exonerating the appellant were not satisfactorily explained.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- Contradictory dying declarations
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 374 CrPC
