Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Vishnu Barde, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his wife, Tai @ Lahanubai, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that on 8 March 2010, the appellant accused his wife of having illicit relations with his brother, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire. The deceased suffered burns and died on 13 March 2010. Two dying declarations were recorded on 9 March 2010 and 10 March 2010. The trial court relied on these declarations to convict the appellant. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies between the two dying declarations. The first declaration, recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate at 6:20 p.m., did not mention the appellant's presence at the time of the incident, while the second declaration, recorded by a Police Head-constable at 6:45 p.m., implicated the appellant. The court also noted that the deceased's hands were burnt, yet the dying declarations bore clear thumb impressions, casting doubt on their authenticity. Additionally, the FIR was registered on 10 March 2010 at 1:10 p.m., but its copy was received in court only on 11 March 2010 at 1:15 p.m., and this delay was not explained. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable. The court also noted that the prosecution did not examine key witnesses such as the mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or the child present at the scene. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, directing his release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Inconsistency - Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside where two dying declarations recorded on same day varied materially regarding presence of accused and manner of incident - Court held that such inconsistency creates doubt and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 2-12). B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR - Unexplained Delay - FIR registered on 10/3/2010 at 13:10 hours but copy received in court on 11/3/2010 at 1:15 hours - Delay not explained - Held that unexplained delay in sending FIR to magistrate is a circumstance casting doubt on prosecution case (Para 7). C) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Thumb Impression - Doubtful - Dying declarations bore clear thumb impressions despite deceased having burnt hands - Held that this raises serious doubt about the genuineness of the declarations (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent with each other and with other evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted and directed to be released unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and inspire confidence
- Inconsistency between multiple dying declarations raises doubt
- Delay in lodging FIR unexplained may affect prosecution case
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
