Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of the appellant's wife, Laxmibai. The appellant, Sanjay Dadarao Babar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. He challenged the conviction on the ground that the dying declarations relied upon were contradictory and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution case hinged on three dying declarations made by the deceased before succumbing to burn injuries. On 2 October 2014, Police Head Constable Chaudhary received information that a woman was burnt at Takli Talao. He found Laxmibai with extensive burns and, while transporting her to hospital, she made an oral statement that her husband demanded money for gambling, and upon her refusal, poured kerosene from a chimney on her and set her ablaze with a matchstick. Later, the Executive Magistrate recorded a dying declaration in which the deceased stated that her husband and others were playing cards under a tree, he demanded money, and when she refused, he poured kerosene from a kerosene lamp and ignited her from the chul. A third declaration was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The victim died on 10 November 2014, and the appellant was charged and convicted solely on these declarations. The central legal issue was whether multiple dying declarations that contained material inconsistencies could sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC without independent corroboration. The appellant argued that the declarations were contradictory regarding the motive (gambling alone or with others), the container of kerosene (chimney or lamp), and the ignition source (matchstick or chul). The defence also presented testimony from the deceased’s son that the death was accidental, occurring while cooking. The State contended that the declarations were consistent and voluntary, and conviction could rest on them alone. Relying on Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, the High Court observed that a dying declaration must be subjected to close scrutiny and must inspire full confidence. It found that the three statements diverged on crucial aspects. Moreover, no independent witness corroborated any version, and the prosecution failed to explain the inconsistencies. The court held that when dying declarations are infirm and inconsistent, they cannot form the basis of conviction without corroboration. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, directing his release forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Conviction Based on Dying Declaration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The High Court examined three dying declarations of the deceased, recorded by different persons at different times, and found material inconsistencies regarding the demand for money for gambling, the container used to pour kerosene, and the source of ignition. No independent witness was examined to corroborate these declarations. Held that a conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot rest on such infirm and inconsistent dying declarations without corroborating evidence, and the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 6-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations are reliable and consistent enough to uphold the conviction under Section 302 IPC without corroboration.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, under Section 302 IPC are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based solely on dying declaration if truthful and reliable
- but if dying declarations are inconsistent and unreliable
- corroboration is required.
