Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Premkumar @ Prashant s/o Gajanan Ramteke, was convicted by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Sessions Trial No.193 of 1996 for offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine for the cruelty charge, and life imprisonment for murder. The case arose from the death of his wife, Kavita, who died from burn injuries on 10-11 March 1996. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, under the influence of liquor, beat his wife and then poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The deceased was taken to the hospital where she made three dying declarations: one to a police officer (PW8), one to a Special Executive Magistrate (PW7), and an oral declaration to her mother (PW1). The trial court relied on these declarations to convict the appellant. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the dying declarations and found material inconsistencies. In the first declaration, the deceased stated that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, but in the second declaration, she stated that the appellant poured kerosene on her and then set her on fire. The third declaration to her mother was vague. The court also noted that the first declaration was recorded by a police officer without a doctor's certification of fitness, and the second declaration was recorded after the deceased was declared fit but contained contradictions. The court held that the dying declarations were not consistent and did not inspire confidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Multiple Dying Declarations - Inconsistencies - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 498A - The court examined the evidentiary value of three dying declarations made by the deceased. The first declaration was recorded by a police officer, the second by a Special Executive Magistrate, and the third was oral. The court found material contradictions regarding the presence of the appellant at the time of the incident and the manner of pouring kerosene. Held that such inconsistencies render the dying declarations unreliable and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Recording by Police Officer - Admissibility - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - The court noted that a dying declaration recorded by a police officer is not per se inadmissible but must be subjected to strict scrutiny. In this case, the first dying declaration was recorded by a police officer without certification of fitness by a doctor, which raised doubts about its voluntariness and accuracy (Paras 11-12). C) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband - Section 498A IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A - The appellant was also convicted for cruelty. However, the court found that the evidence of cruelty was based on the same dying declarations which were found unreliable. Consequently, the conviction under Section 498A was also set aside (Para 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code based on dying declarations is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and reliable
- Dying declaration recorded by police officer not per se inadmissible but must be corroborated
- Conviction can be based on dying declaration if it inspires confidence
- Inconsistencies in multiple dying declarations lead to benefit of doubt
