Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suresh Mohaniraj Thakur, was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Changunabai, by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. The incident occurred on 11 November 1993. The prosecution relied heavily on a dying declaration (Exh.22) recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate (P.W.11) on the same day, wherein the deceased stated that the appellant had set her on fire. However, on 12 November 1993, a second dying declaration (Exh.30) was recorded by another Special Judicial Magistrate (P.W.10) at Nasik, wherein the deceased stated that she was burnt due to a stove explosion. The appellant's defence was that he was not present at the time of the incident and sustained 5% burn injuries while trying to extinguish the fire. The High Court observed that the two dying declarations were contradictory. The first declaration was not recorded by the Magistrate himself but by a clerk (P.W.8) because the Magistrate forgot his spectacles, and there was no certification by a doctor regarding the deceased's fitness to make the statement. In contrast, the second declaration was recorded by a Magistrate after the doctor certified that the deceased was conscious and fit to make the statement. The court held that the second dying declaration was more reliable and that the prosecution failed to explain the contradiction. In the absence of corroboration, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court also noted that the appellant had sustained burn injuries, which supported his defence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Contradictory Declarations - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The appellant was convicted for murder based on a first dying declaration implicating him, but a second dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate stated the death was accidental. The court held that when there are two contradictory dying declarations, the one recorded by a Magistrate after certification of fitness by a doctor is more reliable, and in the absence of corroboration, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The court held that a dying declaration must be consistent and reliable; if there are material contradictions, the court may discard it. The second dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate after proper certification of consciousness was found to be more trustworthy. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on a dying declaration is sustainable when there are two contradictory dying declarations and the second declaration exonerates the accused.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- reliability
- contradiction
- corroboration
- benefit of doubt
