Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Maruti Raghunath Kendre and Sheelabai Maruti Kendre, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, for the murder of Sunita Madhav Kendre under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 2nd September 2009, the appellants entered the house of the deceased, quarreled with her, and then Maruti poured kerosene on her while Sheelabai set her on fire. The conviction was primarily based on two dying declarations made by the deceased to the police and the Executive Magistrate. The appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court, challenging the conviction. The court examined the dying declarations and found material inconsistencies between them. In the first declaration, the deceased stated that both accused poured kerosene and set her on fire, while in the second, she stated that only Maruti poured kerosene and Sheelabai set her on fire. The medical evidence did not corroborate the presence of kerosene or the manner of burning. The court also noted that there were no independent witnesses to the incident. The court held that the dying declarations were not reliable and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Inconsistency - The court considered whether a conviction can be based on dying declarations that are contradictory and not corroborated by other evidence. The dying declarations of the deceased were recorded by different authorities and contained material inconsistencies regarding the role of each accused. The court held that such inconsistent dying declarations cannot form the sole basis for conviction, and the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-20) B) Evidence Act - Dying Declaration - Reliability - The court examined the evidentiary value of dying declarations under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It held that a dying declaration must be trustworthy and free from doubt. In this case, the dying declarations were not consistent and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case, leading to acquittal. (Paras 15-25) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Appreciation of Evidence - The court re-appreciated the evidence on record and found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the dying declarations and lack of independent witnesses created reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Conviction cannot be based solely on contradictory dying declarations
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Section 302 IPC requires proof of homicidal death
- Section 34 IPC requires common intention
