Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sunil s/o Deorao Dhawale, was convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, for the murder of his wife Rajani under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 12 February 1996, Rajani and her mother Godabai suffered burn injuries at Godabai's residence. Rajani died on 13 February 1996, and Godabai died on 17 February 1996. The trial court found Godabai's death accidental, which was not challenged. The conviction for Rajani's murder was based on dying declarations. The High Court examined the dying declarations recorded by ASI V.T. Vairagade (Exhibits 51 and 52), API L.M. Khobragade (Exhibits 58 and 60), and Executive Magistrate Umesh Kale (Exhibits 44 and 45). The court found material inconsistencies: in some declarations, Rajani stated that the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire, while in others she stated that she caught fire accidentally from a stove. The court held that such contradictions render the dying declarations unreliable. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on dying declarations - The court examined whether the dying declarations of the deceased were reliable and consistent. The prosecution relied on multiple dying declarations which contained contradictions regarding the role of the accused. The court held that when dying declarations are inconsistent and contradictory, they cannot form the sole basis for conviction. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Inconsistencies - The court analyzed the dying declarations recorded by the police, the Executive Magistrate, and the ASI. The declarations varied on material aspects such as the presence of the accused and the manner of the incident. The court held that such inconsistencies create doubt and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3-8) C) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the unreliable nature of the dying declarations. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on dying declarations is sustainable when the dying declarations are inconsistent and contradictory.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and free from doubt to form sole basis of conviction
- Inconsistencies in multiple dying declarations lead to acquittal
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
