Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Asha by burning. The prosecution alleged that on 10.2.1997, while the victim was alone, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her and accused No.2 set her on fire. Two dying declarations were recorded: one before a Special Executive Magistrate (Exhibit 9) implicating both accused, and another before a doctor (Exhibit 10) which did not name the accused. The trial court convicted both accused based on the first dying declaration. On appeal, the High Court reappreciated the evidence and found material inconsistencies between the two dying declarations. The court noted that the second dying declaration, recorded by a doctor, was more reliable as it was made when the victim was in a better condition and she did not implicate the accused. Additionally, the medical evidence suggested that the burn injuries were not consistent with the alleged pouring of kerosene. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the accused were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistency - Two dying declarations recorded in the case were contradictory regarding the role of the accused - The first declaration implicated both accused, while the second exonerated them - Held that when dying declarations are inconsistent, the court must scrutinize them carefully and if doubt arises, benefit must go to the accused (Paras 4-10). B) Criminal Law - Conviction - Corroboration - Dying Declaration - Medical Evidence - The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case as the burn injuries were inconsistent with the alleged pouring of kerosene - Held that conviction cannot be based solely on a dying declaration if it is contradicted by medical evidence and other circumstances (Paras 11-15). C) Criminal Law - Appeal - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in dying declarations and lack of independent witnesses - Held that the appellants are entitled to acquittal (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC based on two dying declarations is sustainable when the declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Conviction cannot be based on contradictory dying declarations
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
