Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Beerappa, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his niece, Shivamma (aged 15), by setting her on fire. The prosecution alleged that the accused was unhappy about a property dispute and decided to kill the deceased to remove an obstacle. On 2.8.2012, he allegedly entered the house of PW.5, sprinkled kerosene on the deceased, and set her ablaze. The deceased sustained 95% burns and died on 3.8.2012. The trial court relied on two dying declarations: one recorded by the police (Ex.P.1) and another by the Taluka Executive Magistrate (Ex.P.2). The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the dying declarations and found material contradictions. In Ex.P.1, the deceased stated that the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire, but in Ex.P.2, she stated that the accused only poured kerosene and someone else lit the fire. Additionally, the dying declarations differed on the presence of witnesses. The court also noted that the medical evidence did not corroborate the dying declarations, and there were no independent witnesses. The court held that the dying declarations were not reliable and could not form the sole basis for conviction. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Section 302 IPC - The court examined whether the dying declarations (Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2) were consistent and trustworthy. The deceased made two dying declarations: one to the police (Ex.P.1) and another to the Taluka Executive Magistrate (Ex.P.2). The court found material contradictions between them regarding the manner of incident and the presence of witnesses. Held that the dying declarations were not reliable and could not form the sole basis for conviction (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Corroboration - Section 302 IPC - The court noted that while a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is free from doubt, in this case, the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration by medical evidence or independent witnesses created reasonable doubt. Held that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations made by the deceased are reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in SC No.103/2012 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Corroboration of dying declaration is not mandatory but must be free from doubt
- Benefit of doubt to accused in case of inconsistencies
