Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals filed by original accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of Gautam Kishanrao More. The prosecution case was that on 13 December 2010, the deceased Gautam was working as a labourer cutting trees on the land of PW2 Motiram. The accused, who were also labourers, allegedly assaulted Gautam with sticks and axes following a quarrel. PW2 Motiram was informed by one Mustafa about the incident and found Gautam injured. The police were called, and Gautam was taken to the hospital where his dying declaration was recorded by PW8 Dy. S.P. Vishal Gaikwad at 2:00 a.m. on 14 December 2010. Based on this declaration, an FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC, later converted to Section 302 IPC after Gautam's death. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable as it was not recorded in question-answer form, no doctor certified the deceased's fitness, and there was ample opportunity for tutoring. The State supported the conviction. The High Court analyzed the dying declaration and found it lacking in procedural safeguards. The court noted that the declaration was not recorded in the proper format, there was no endorsement by a medical officer regarding the deceased's mental fitness, and the deceased's relatives were present, creating a possibility of tutoring. The court also observed that the prosecution did not examine key witnesses like Mustafa and the police patil, and the medical evidence did not corroborate the dying declaration. Consequently, the court held that the dying declaration was not reliable and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused were acquitted. The court directed that the accused be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 302 r.w. 34 IPC - Reliability - The court examined whether the dying declaration recorded by a police officer was voluntary and trustworthy - Held that the dying declaration was not recorded in the form of questions and answers, and there was no certificate of fitness by a doctor, making it unreliable - The court also noted that the deceased had multiple opportunities to be tutored by relatives before the declaration was recorded - Consequently, the conviction based solely on such dying declaration was unsustainable (Paras 1-20). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 r.w. 34 IPC - Lack of Corroboration - The prosecution failed to examine material witnesses like Mustafa and the police patil, and the medical evidence did not support the dying declaration - Held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The accused were entitled to acquittal (Paras 21-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration of the deceased was reliable and sufficient to convict the accused under Section 302 r.w. 34 IPC
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled. Accused to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be recorded in proper form and be free from tutoring
- Dying declaration must be corroborated if there are doubts
- Conviction cannot be based solely on unreliable dying declaration
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
