Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sumanbai w/o Mahadeo Gaikwad, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, for the murder of her daughter-in-law Urmila under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 23 April 2010, the appellant poured kerosene on Urmila and set her ablaze following a quarrel. Urmila sustained 97% burns and died on 25 April 2010. The conviction was based primarily on dying declarations made by Urmila to her father (PW1) and to the police. However, the dying declarations were inconsistent: in one, she stated that her husband beat her and her mother-in-law set her on fire; in another, she stated that she caught fire accidentally while cooking. The court found that the dying declarations were contradictory on material particulars and lacked corroboration. The court also noted that the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A IPC, and the husband was acquitted of all charges. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Contradictory Dying Declarations - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court examined whether the dying declarations of the deceased were consistent and reliable. The deceased made multiple dying declarations which contradicted each other on material particulars, including the identity of the person who set her on fire. The court held that when dying declarations are inconsistent and contradictory, they cannot form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in the dying declarations and lack of corroborative evidence. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and contradictory.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
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
