Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of appellant Vinayak Pawar under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his second wife Sunita by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene. The incident occurred on 21 May 2010 at their residence in Ramnagar, Beed. The appellant was married to Sunita three years prior, while his first wife, accused no. 2 Barkubai, had returned and was also living with them, leading to quarrels. On the night of the incident, Sunita was sleeping in the courtyard when the appellant called her inside, abused her, poured kerosene, and threw a lit lamp, causing 98% burns that resulted in her death on 26 May 2010. The prosecution's case rested entirely on four dying declarations: two written—one recorded by Police Head Constable PW4 Pandharinath Khade (Exh.41) and another by Naib Tahsildar PW8 Abhay Maske (Exh.56)—and two oral ones made to maternal uncles PW2 Baban Mali and PW6 Baba Mali. There were no eyewitnesses to the actual crime. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant but acquitted the two lady co-accused. In appeal, the Bombay High Court considered whether the dying declarations could support the conviction. The court analyzed the settled legal principles, emphasizing that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it is true, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind, with corroboration being merely a rule of prudence, as held in P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka. It then scrutinized the evidence. The court noted that PW6 Baba Mali, who claimed Sunita told him in the rickshaw that the appellant caused the burns, failed to disclose this information to the hospital staff at 10:55 pm on 21 May 2010, when she was admitted. This non-disclosure raised a significant doubt about the credibility of that oral declaration. The matter was reserved for judgment on 30 January 2014 and pronounced on 17 February 2014, but the final outcome of the appeal is not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Dying Declaration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 307; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - The court examined whether multiple dying declarations—two written (Exh.41 by PW4 and Exh.56 by PW8) and two oral (to PW2 and PW6)—could sustain a murder conviction in the absence of eyewitnesses. The court reiterated the principle from P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if the court is satisfied about its truthfulness, voluntariness, and the victim's fit state of mind, and that corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. The court noted that PW6 Baba Mali, who claimed to have received an oral dying declaration in the rickshaw, did not disclose the assailant's identity to the hospital authorities at 10:55 pm, casting doubt on the declaration's consistency. Held that the dying declarations required careful scrutiny for reliability and trustworthiness before basing a conviction (Paras 15-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC based solely on two written and two oral dying declarations can be sustained in light of inconsistencies and lack of immediate disclosure by a key witness
Law Points
- Dying declaration can be sole basis of conviction if true
- voluntary
- and made in fit state of mind
- corroboration is a rule of prudence
- not mandatory
- court must be on guard against tutoring
- prompting
- or imagination
- credibility of multiple dying declarations must be scrutinized carefully
- non-disclosure by witness to hospital authorities creates doubt
