Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Waman Gulab Kadam, Bhagwan Dattaram Kadam, and Dadarao Dattaram Kadam, were convicted by the Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine. The case arose from an incident on the night of 26/05/2005, when the deceased Kausar sustained burn injuries. His wife Rafiyabee informed neighbour Syed Gaus Syed Gudu (PW5), who helped shift Kausar to the hospital. At the hospital, ASI Mirza Yunus Baig (PW13) recorded a statement (Exh.68) of Kausar around midnight, which was treated as a dying declaration. Subsequently, Special Judicial Magistrate Md. Ahemododdin Faruki (PW9) recorded another dying declaration (Exh.54) at about 12:30 midnight. Based on these declarations, the appellants were charged and convicted. The appellants challenged their conviction in the High Court. The court examined the two dying declarations and found material contradictions. In the first declaration (Exh.68), Kausar stated that three persons poured kerosene on him and set him on fire, while in the second declaration (Exh.54), he stated that only one person poured kerosene and another set him on fire. The medical evidence indicated that the burns were 100% and the deceased was not in a fit state to make a coherent statement. The court held that the dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable, and there was no other corroborating evidence. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Sections 302, 452 r/w 34 IPC - Conviction based on dying declarations - Held that when two dying declarations are contradictory and inconsistent, they cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction without corroboration. The court found that the dying declarations recorded by the police and the magistrate were contradictory regarding the number of assailants and the manner of attack, and the medical evidence did not support the version of the deceased. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are contradictory and not corroborated by other evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Contradictory dying declarations cannot form sole basis of conviction
- Benefit of doubt to accused when evidence is inconsistent
