Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Raju @ Rajeshkumar Munnilal Gupta and Gabbar @ Rakesh Budhiram Yadav, were convicted by the Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.361 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to six years imprisonment each. They were originally charged under Sections 302, 452, 354, 341 read with 34 IPC for the murder of Surekha Daulat Nikhad, who was set on fire and succumbed to burn injuries. The trial court acquitted them of the murder charge but convicted them under Section 304(I) IPC. The prosecution case primarily relied on a dying declaration recorded by Neha Nandkumar Amberkar (PW4), a Special Executive Magistrate, which was exhibited as Exh.19. Additionally, a half-burnt motor driving licence belonging to appellant No.1 was recovered from the scene of the offence. The appellants challenged their conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the dying declaration and found it to be reliable, voluntary, and consistent with other evidence. The court noted that the dying declaration could be the sole basis for conviction if found trustworthy. The recovery of the half-burnt driving licence belonging to appellant No.1 at the scene provided corroboration. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the death was homicidal and that the appellants were responsible. However, the court agreed with the trial court that the offence fell under Section 304(I) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 IPC (murder), as the act of setting the deceased on fire indicated knowledge that it was likely to cause death but not necessarily an intention to cause death. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Dying declaration recorded by Special Executive Magistrate can be sole basis of conviction if it is found to be truthful, voluntary, and free from tutoring - Court examined the dying declaration (Exh.19) and found it consistent with other evidence - Held that the dying declaration was reliable and could be acted upon (Paras 4-6). B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide - Section 304(I) IPC - Distinction between murder and culpable homicide - The act of setting a person on fire indicates knowledge that the act is likely to cause death but may not necessarily amount to murder if there is no intention to cause death - Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 304(I) instead of Section 302 IPC - Held that the conviction under Section 304(I) was appropriate given the circumstances (Paras 7-8). C) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of Half-Burnt Driving Licence - Recovery of a half-burnt driving licence belonging to appellant No.1 at the scene of offence is a relevant circumstance corroborating the dying declaration - Held that such recovery strengthens the prosecution case (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 304(I) IPC based on dying declaration and recovery of half-burnt driving licence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction under Section 304(I) IPC and sentence of six years imprisonment confirmed.
Law Points
- Dying declaration can be sole basis of conviction if found reliable
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(I) IPC requires knowledge that act is likely to cause death but without intention to cause death
- Recovery of incriminating article at scene is corroborative evidence
