Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suresh s/o Nathuji Bagade, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 457/2006 for the murder of his brother's wife, Sunita, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000. The incident occurred on 1st September 2006 at about 10.30-11.00 am when the deceased was proceeding to the common bathroom. The appellant allegedly quarreled with her, poured kerosene, and set her on fire. The deceased was rushed to Mayo Hospital and succumbed to injuries on 5th September 2006. There were no eyewitnesses, and the prosecution case rested entirely on two dying declarations: one recorded by the Investigating Officer (Exh. 28) and another recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate (Exh. 29). The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable. The court examined both declarations and found material contradictions. In the first declaration, the deceased stated that the appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire, while in the second declaration, she stated that the appellant poured kerosene but did not mention that he set her on fire. The second declaration also omitted the presence of the appellant's father and brother, who were mentioned in the first declaration. The court held that the inconsistencies created doubt about the truthfulness of the declarations. The court also noted that the dying declaration recorded by the police officer, though admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, must be scrutinized carefully. Since the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 302 IPC, Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Conviction based on dying declarations - The appellant was convicted for murder of his brother's wife by setting her on fire. The prosecution relied on two dying declarations. The court found material inconsistencies between the two declarations regarding the manner of incident and presence of others. Held that the dying declarations were not reliable and the conviction was unsustainable (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Inconsistencies - The first dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer stated that the appellant poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire, while the second dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate stated that the appellant poured kerosene but did not mention setting on fire. The court noted that the second declaration omitted crucial details and was inconsistent. Held that such inconsistencies create doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Law - Appeal - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable dying declarations (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on two dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 457/2006 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, who is in jail, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Dying declaration recorded by police officer is admissible under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Conviction can be based on dying declaration without corroboration if it inspires confidence
- Inconsistencies between multiple dying declarations create doubt
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
