Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Savitaben, who was convicted under Sections 302 and 452 read with Section 114 IPC for the murder of Narmadaben by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. The prosecution case relied heavily on the testimony of Bharat (PW-12), the son of the deceased, who claimed that the appellant brought kerosene at the behest of her husband. However, the earliest dying declaration made by the deceased to Dr. Chandrakant (PW-3) only implicated the husband, Manharbhai Ambalal Rohit, and did not mention the appellant. The court noted that the other son Mehul was not examined, and there was a delay of six hours in registering the FIR. Considering these inconsistencies and the lack of corroboration, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Value - Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The earliest dying declaration made by the deceased to the doctor (PW-3) attributed the act of setting her ablaze only to accused Manharbhai Ambalal Rohit and did not mention the appellant Savitaben. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to her. (Paras 9-10) B) Criminal Law - Corroboration - Necessity of Corroboration of Accomplice Evidence - Section 114 IPC - The evidence of the sole eyewitness (PW-12) attributing the act of bringing kerosene to the appellant was not corroborated by other evidence, including the dying declaration and the fact that the other son Mehul was not examined. The court found the prosecution case against the appellant not proved. (Paras 8-10) C) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - Section 302 IPC - Considering the inconsistencies in the evidence and the absence of the appellant's name in the earliest dying declaration, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant, and ordered her release. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant-accused Savitaben under Sections 302 and 452 read with Section 114 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record, particularly in light of the earliest dying declaration which did not implicate her.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant Savitaben, and acquitted her of all charges. She was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- Corroboration
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 452 IPC
- Section 114 IPC
