Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Ramesh, Suresh, and Malanbai, were convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Jayashri, the wife of appellant No.1, by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. The prosecution alleged that the appellants demanded Rs.5000/- and a golden ring from the deceased's parents and, on the day of the incident, abused and assaulted her, leading to her death. The conviction was based primarily on two dying declarations made by the deceased to her mother and to a police officer. However, the High Court found significant inconsistencies between these declarations. In the first declaration to her mother, the deceased stated that her husband instigated and her brother-in-law poured kerosene and set her on fire. In the second declaration to the police, she stated that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire, while the other accused instigated. The medical evidence indicated that the deceased had 100% burns and was in a precarious condition, raising doubts about her ability to make coherent statements. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses and that the evidence of demand was weak. Consequently, the High Court held that the dying declarations were unreliable and not corroborated, and thus the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were set aside.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistency - The court considered whether a conviction can be based on dying declarations that are contradictory to each other and to medical evidence. Held that when dying declarations are inconsistent and not corroborated by other evidence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-15) B) Evidence Act - Dying Declaration - Section 32(1) - Corroboration - The court examined the evidentiary value of dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Held that a dying declaration must be trustworthy and free from doubt; if there are multiple dying declarations, they must be consistent in material particulars. (Paras 10-15) C) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Dowry Demand - The court assessed the prosecution's case regarding demand of Rs.5000/- and golden ring. Held that the evidence of demand was weak and not sufficient to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Convictions of appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Conviction cannot be based on contradictory dying declarations
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution case suffers from inconsistencies
