Case Note & Summary
The appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the resultant sentence of life imprisonment. The case arose from an incident on July 24, 1995, where the victim Manjula, a widow with whom the appellant had an illicit relationship, suffered burn injuries and later died on July 29, 1995. The prosecution alleged that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire after accusing her of causing his brother's death through black magic. The victim initially extinguished the fire and later went to the police station, where she jumped into a well, sustaining further injuries before being rescued and hospitalized. The trial court relied on dying declarations made to police officers and relatives to convict the appellant. However, before the High Court, it emerged that the first statement given by the victim to Dr. Chinchure indicated that she had burnt herself, i.e., suicidal burns. This directly contradicted the later statements alleging homicide. Additionally, the victim's act of jumping into a 40-foot deep well near the police station, without any apparent coercion, strongly suggested suicidal tendencies. The court noted the absence of any eye witnesses and the lack of a dying declaration recorded by a magistrate despite the victim surviving for three days. Applying the settled principle that if a probability consistent with innocence is established, the benefit must go to the accused, the court found the prosecution evidence unreliable. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Conflict Between Suicidal and Homicidal Statements Creates Reasonable Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - The conviction rested solely on dying declarations which were inconsistent: one recorded by a doctor indicated suicidal burns, while others to police and relatives indicated homicidal burns. The victim also jumped into a well, further supporting suicidal intent. The court held that when a probability consistent with the innocence of the accused is established, the benefit must go to the accused. Hence, the conviction was set aside. (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable based solely on dying declarations that were inconsistent, with one indicating suicidal burns and another homicidal burns, and the victim's act of jumping into a well suggesting suicidal intent.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the sentence is quashed. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled, and fine if paid shall be refunded.
Law Points
- Dying declarations must be consistent
- conflict between suicidal and homicidal statements creates reasonable doubt
- benefit of doubt to accused when probability of innocence established
