Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Sanjay Ramkrushna Bhatkar (appellant No. 1) and Kiran Sukhdev Muley (appellant No. 2) against their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2013. The appellants were convicted for the murder of Swati, wife of appellant No. 1, and for cruelty. The prosecution alleged that on 16.12.2012, appellant No. 1 invited appellant No. 2 for dinner and asked his wife to bring glasses for liquor. When she objected, appellant No. 2 provoked appellant No. 1, who then poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The deceased sustained 100% burns and died. The prosecution relied on two dying declarations: one recorded by the Executive Magistrate (Exh. 28) and another recorded by a police officer (Exh. 29). The first declaration stated that appellant No. 1 alone poured kerosene and set her on fire, while the second stated that both appellants poured kerosene and set her on fire. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302 IPC and appellant No. 1 also under Section 498A IPC. On appeal, the High Court examined the dying declarations and found them contradictory. The court noted that the first declaration was recorded in the presence of a doctor who certified the deceased was conscious, while the second was recorded later without such certification. The court held that the inconsistency between the two declarations creates doubt and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The court also found that the charge of abetment under Section 109 IPC against appellant No. 2 was not supported by consistent evidence. Regarding Section 498A IPC, the court observed that the allegation of cruelty was not consistently mentioned in the dying declarations and lacked independent corroboration. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted both appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistent Dying Declarations - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The court examined two dying declarations of the deceased which were contradictory regarding the role of the appellants. The first declaration implicated only the husband, while the second implicated both. The court held that such inconsistency creates doubt and cannot form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 109 IPC - Abetment requires instigation or active participation - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 109 - The court found that the alleged provocation by appellant No. 2 was not sufficiently proved and the dying declarations did not consistently support the charge of abetment. (Paras 16-18) C) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband - Section 498A IPC - Proof of Cruelty - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A - The court noted that the allegation of cruelty was based on the deceased's statement, but the dying declarations did not consistently mention cruelty, and there was no independent evidence to support the charge. (Paras 19-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations of the deceased were reliable and sufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 302, 498A, and 109 IPC.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2013 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Conviction cannot be based on contradictory dying declarations
- Section 302 IPC requires proof of homicidal death
- Section 498A IPC requires proof of cruelty
- Section 109 IPC requires abetment
- Benefit of doubt when evidence is inconsistent
