Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Baburao @ Babulal Raibhan Patole (Jadhav), was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, for the murder of his wife Sojarbai under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 21st December 1996, the appellant demanded Rs.900/- from the deceased to purchase liquor, and upon her refusal, he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The deceased sustained severe burns and later died. The prosecution relied primarily on two dying declarations: a written dying declaration recorded by PSI Gaware (P.W.4) at the hospital, and an oral dying declaration made to her brother Babasaheb (P.W.5). The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the consistency between the two dying declarations. The court noted that the oral dying declaration made to the brother did not mention the demand of Rs.900/- which was the alleged motive for the crime, whereas the written dying declaration did mention it. This inconsistency was considered material. The court held that for a dying declaration to be the sole basis of conviction, it must be free from suspicion and inspire confidence. The inconsistency between the two declarations rendered the evidence untrustworthy. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistency - The court considered whether the dying declaration recorded by PSI Gaware (Exhibit '24') and the oral dying declaration made to the brother (P.W.5) were consistent. The oral declaration did not mention the demand of Rs.900/- which was the alleged motive, creating a material inconsistency. Held that such inconsistency renders the dying declarations untrustworthy and the conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations (oral and written) are consistent and reliable enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and free from suspicion
- Inconsistency between oral and written dying declarations renders evidence untrustworthy
- Motive not mentioned in dying declaration creates doubt
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 48
Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2004
Mr. Aniket Vagal for Appellant/Accused, Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal - Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents – State
Baburao @ Babulal Raibhan Patole (Jadhav)
The Government of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the conviction based on unreliable dying declarations.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for murder of his wife based on dying declarations which were inconsistent.
Previous Decisions
Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan convicted the appellant on 14th August 2003 for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Issues
Whether the dying declarations (oral and written) are consistent and reliable enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the dying declaration is not free from suspicion; oral dying declaration to brother is inconsistent with written dying declaration as motive of Rs.900/- demand is missing in oral declaration.
Respondent/State argued that the dying declarations are consistent and sufficient to prove guilt.
Ratio Decidendi
A dying declaration must be consistent and free from suspicion to be the sole basis of conviction. Inconsistency between oral and written dying declarations regarding the motive renders the evidence untrustworthy, and the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
It is submitted that there is no mention about demand of Rs. 900/- alleged to have been made by the appellant from the deceased which according to prosecution was the main reason for the appellant to get enraged, since deceased refused to give him the amount.
It is therefore contended that inconsistency in oral and written dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased renders evidence of dying declaration untrustworthy.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan on 14th August 2003 for murder under Section 302 IPC. He appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court reserved judgment on 7th June 2011 and pronounced on 13th June 2011, allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 307
