Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal appeal by the State against the acquittal of three accused charged with murder under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on 14 February 2008, the accused entered the field of 90-year-old Tukaram Ghaywat, poured kerosene and set him on fire over a dispute concerning Rs.1,00,000 compensation granted on the death of his son Sanjay, whose widow was accused No.1 Kanchan. Kanchan had later married the deceased's other son Mangesh (PW4) but left him, and there was ongoing conflict over the compensation. The deceased was taken to hospital, where an Executive Magistrate recorded his dying declaration (Ex.30) at about 9.30 p.m., stating that Kanti, Parsha and Sagar came on a motorcycle, pressed his mouth, poured oil and set him alight. PW4 Mangesh also claimed that the deceased made an oral dying declaration to him, adding that the accused had lifted him under a papaya tree. The trial court acquitted the accused on 31 January 2009, holding the dying declarations unreliable. On appeal, the State contended that the dying declarations were credible and proved the case. The High Court, relying on Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22), emphasized that a dying declaration must undergo close scrutiny and, if found infirm, requires corroboration. The Court observed multiple contradictions: the dying declaration mentioned a motorcycle, but PW5 (spot panch) admitted no vehicle could enter the field and no tyre marks were found; the deceased claimed his son was also beaten, but the son did not testify to this; PW4 was an interested witness due to the compensation dispute; and the oral dying declaration included a detail (lifting under a papaya tree) absent in Ex.30. Crucially, PW8, the deceased's grandson who first reached him, stated that the deceased only complained of pain and did not disclose the attack, suggesting accidental burns while cooking were possible. The Court thus concluded that both dying declarations were contradictory and unreliable, and the trial court’s acquittal was free from infirmity. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal, and counsel fees for the respondents were fixed at Rs.5,000.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The High Court held that a dying declaration must closely scrutinized; if found unreliable due to contradictions and infirmities, it cannot form the basis of conviction without corroboration - The two dying declarations (Ex.30 and oral to PW4) were contradictory, PW4 was an interested witness, the spot evidence contradicted the mention of motorcycle, and the first person to reach (PW8) heard no disclosure of attack - The trial court rightly acquitted the accused, and the appeal was dismissed (Paras 7-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations (Exhibit 30 and oral declaration to PW4) were reliable enough to convict the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, or the trial court was justified in acquitting due to inconsistencies and interested witness.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. It found the dying declarations unreliable, contradictory, and given by an interested witness. The trial court's judgment was without infirmity.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must inspire confidence
- can be sole basis for conviction
- if doubtful requires corroboration
