Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajesh @ Raju s/o Nagnath @ Nivrutti Sardiwal (Pardeshi), was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, for the murder of his wife Sandhya under Section 302 IPC and for criminal intimidation under Section 506 part (2) IPC. The prosecution case was that on 24th February 2010, Sandhya sustained burn injuries and was admitted to Government Hospital, Aurangabad. Police Head Constable S. L. Chaudhari recorded her statement, wherein she stated that she received burn injuries due to bursting of a stove. Subsequently, an Executive Magistrate recorded her dying declaration, wherein she implicated the appellant, alleging that he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The trial court relied on the second dying declaration and convicted the appellant. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the two dying declarations and found material inconsistencies. The first dying declaration attributed the incident to an accident, while the second implicated the appellant. The court noted that the medical evidence did not support the second dying declaration, as the doctor opined that the burns were consistent with accidental fire. The court also observed that there was no corroboration from independent witnesses or circumstances. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the appellant's release.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Inconsistency - The court examined whether the dying declarations of the deceased were reliable and consistent. The deceased initially stated that she suffered burn injuries due to bursting of stove, but later implicated the appellant. The court found material contradictions between the two dying declarations and held that the prosecution failed to prove the homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-22) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Reliability - The court held that a dying declaration must be consistent and trustworthy. In this case, the first dying declaration recorded by the police head constable attributed the incident to an accident, while the second dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate implicated the appellant. The court found that the second dying declaration was not corroborated by medical evidence or other circumstances, and thus could not be relied upon to convict the appellant. (Paras 10-18) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Acquittal - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith. (Paras 19-22)
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
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded. Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
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 when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
