Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast-Track Court, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.82 of 1995. Three respondents (brother-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the deceased) were tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for burning Hanifaben to death on 03.04.1995. The deceased was residing with the accused while her husband was in Dubai. A quarrel over food preparation led to the alleged incident where kerosene was poured and she was set on fire. The deceased was taken to Irvin Hospital, Jamnagar, where her complaint was recorded and a dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate Rasiklal Mudshankar Mehta (PW1). She succumbed to burns after 23 days. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the dying declaration unreliable due to inconsistencies with the initial complaint and lack of corroboration. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the deceased initially stated in her complaint that she caught fire accidentally while cooking, but later in the dying declaration she named the accused. The court noted that the doctor had certified her fit to give the dying declaration, but the inconsistency between the two statements created doubt. The court also observed that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and there was no independent corroboration. The High Court held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. The appeal against respondent no.3 abated due to his death on 17.06.2010. The court dismissed the appeal against respondents no.1 and 2, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistency between dying declaration and earlier complaint - The deceased initially stated in her complaint that she caught fire accidentally while cooking, but later in her dying declaration named the accused. The court held that such inconsistency creates doubt and the dying declaration cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. (Paras 11-13) C) Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Murder by Burning - Common Intention - The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had common intention to kill the deceased. The evidence of witnesses was contradictory and the dying declaration was not reliable. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Acquittal of respondents no.1 and 2 upheld. Appeal abated against respondent no.3.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- Appreciation of evidence
- Acquittal appeal
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Benefit of doubt
