Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Masoodali Sadaikali and his father Sadikali Asadali, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akot for offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly harassing the deceased Rizwana for dowry and subsequently setting her on fire on 23 April 2012. The deceased sustained severe burn injuries and was initially treated at a hospital in Akot, where her statement was recorded by Naib Tahsildar Tulshiram Rathod (PW4) as Exh.142. She was later shifted to Shriram Hospital, Akola, where another Executive Magistrate, Shriram Raut (PW3), recorded her statement as Exh.139. Based on these statements, an offence was registered. The trial court convicted both appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the two dying declarations and found material inconsistencies between them. The court noted that the declarations contradicted each other on crucial aspects, including the role of the appellants and the circumstances of the incident. The court held that such contradictory dying declarations cannot form the sole basis for conviction, especially when there is no other corroborating evidence. The court also observed that the medical evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution's version. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Inconsistent Dying Declarations - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 498A - The deceased made two dying declarations, one before a Naib Tahsildar (Exh.142) and another before a different Executive Magistrate (Exh.139). The two declarations were contradictory regarding the manner of the incident and the role of the accused. The court held that such inconsistencies create doubt and the dying declarations cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Inconsistent Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302 and 498A - Where the prosecution case rests solely on dying declarations that are contradictory and not corroborated by other evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations recorded from the deceased are reliable and consistent enough to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges. They are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Contradictory dying declarations cannot form sole basis of conviction
- Benefit of doubt to accused in case of inconsistencies
- Section 302 IPC requires proof of homicidal death
- Section 498A IPC requires proof of cruelty
