Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohd. Salim, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for subjecting the deceased, Manisha, to cruelty and abetting her suicide. The prosecution case was that the appellant and Manisha were in a relationship, possibly married, and Manisha, fed up with the appellant's ill-treatment including non-payment of rent and expenses, pressure to terminate pregnancy, and threats, set herself on fire on 5 March 2000, dying on 10 March 2000. Three dying declarations were recorded; the first was not proved, while the second (Exhibit 24, recorded by a head constable) and third (Exhibit 18, recorded by an executive magistrate) were relied upon by the trial court to convict. The defense was total denial, challenging the dying declarations as unreliable and inconsistent. The High Court found that the two proved dying declarations were materially inconsistent. The earlier one (Exhibit 24) only mentioned non-payment of rent and expenses leading to harassment by the landlady, whereas the later one (Exhibit 18) introduced additional allegations of use of filthy language, defamation, and threats to kill. The court noted that the brother of the deceased, P.W.5 Girish Deshmukh, had demanded a fresh dying declaration after one was already recorded, creating a suspicion of tutoring. Moreover, evidence revealed that both Manisha and her grandmother Rukhmabai sustained burn injuries simultaneously at the same place, and a sanha entry indicated a quarrel between Manisha and her grandmother as the reason for the suicide, casting further doubt on the prosecution's version. The court analyzed the law on dying declarations and cruelty under Section 498A. It held that the multiple dying declarations with stark inconsistencies and the real possibility of tutoring could not be relied upon. The court further observed that even taking the dying declaration at face value, the conduct of not visiting, not paying rent, and not providing expenses, though deplorable, did not amount to cruelty as defined under Explanation (a) to Section 498A. Additionally, the executive magistrate who recorded Exhibit 18 did not personally certify the fitness of the deceased to give the statement, relying solely on a doctor's endorsement, which the court considered an infirmity. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability and Multiple Versions - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 306, 498A - The case involved three dying declarations, the first not proved, and the two subsequent ones containing material inconsistencies. The court held that multiple dying declarations with stark variance and the possibility of tutoring by a relative (brother of deceased) render them unreliable. The brother's demand to record another dying declaration after one was already recorded raised suspicion. Allowing appeal, conviction set aside. (Paras 6, 13-15) B) Criminal Law - Cruelty - Meaning under Section 498A Explanation (a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A - Non-payment of rent and household expenses by the accused, even assuming marital relationship, does not per se constitute cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 498A. The conduct, though deplorable, must be of such nature as to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury. Here, the allegations of not visiting and financial neglect were insufficient. Accused acquitted. (Para 12) C) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Certification of Fitness - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 306, 498A - The executive magistrate recording the dying declaration did not himself certify that the deceased was fit to give statement; he relied on an endorsement on the requisition. The court noted this as an infirmity affecting the credibility of the dying declaration. (Para 15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the dying declarations and other evidence on record?
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges. His bail bond stood cancelled.
Law Points
- Multiple dying declarations with inconsistencies and possibility of tutoring are unreliable
- non-payment of rent and expenses may not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC
- certification of fitness of declarant must be made by the recording authority
- dying declaration must inspire confidence to sustain conviction.
