Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sangeeta, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati for the murder of her step daughter-in-law, Kalpana, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 13.10.2000, Kalpana was set on fire by the appellant who poured kerosene on her and lit a matchstick. Kalpana sustained burn injuries and later died. The prosecution relied on two dying declarations: one oral to her husband Harish and another written recorded by an Executive Magistrate. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable. The High Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions between the two dying declarations. In the oral declaration to her husband, Kalpana stated that the appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire. However, in the written declaration recorded by the Magistrate, she stated that the appellant was not present and that she caught fire accidentally while cooking. The court noted that the Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration was not examined, and the doctor who certified her fitness was also not examined. The court held that the dying declarations were contradictory and could not be relied upon. The court also observed that there was no other corroborative evidence to support the prosecution case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving her the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Inconsistency in Dying Declarations - The appellant was convicted for murder of her step daughter-in-law based on two dying declarations. The court found material contradictions between the oral dying declaration to the husband and the written dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The court held that when there are inconsistencies in dying declarations, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Corroboration - The court observed that a dying declaration must be consistent and reliable. In this case, the dying declarations were contradictory regarding the presence of the accused and the manner of incident. The court held that such inconsistent dying declarations cannot form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Conviction cannot be based on contradictory dying declarations
- Benefit of doubt must be given to accused
