Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from the judgment of the III Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 331 of 2000, where the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 7 October 2000, the deceased Shakuntalabai, wife of appellant No. 1, was set on fire by her husband and the two women appellants over suspicion of illicit relations. She sustained 92% burns and succumbed on 12 October 2000. The case hinged on two dying declarations recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate (PW2) and the investigating officer, PSI Nikam, and circumstantial evidence. The trial court relied on these declarations to convict. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence. The court found that PW2 admitted the deceased was in severe pain, answered abruptly, and some words were unclear. There was no endorsement by a doctor that the deceased was fit to make a statement. The dying declaration recorded by PSI Nikam was not proved as he was not examined. The spot panchnama revealed only one matchstick, contradicting the claim that all three accused threw matchsticks. Other witnesses, including neighbours and the brother, turned hostile. The court held that the dying declarations lacked corroboration and were not reliable. The prosecution failed to establish common intention or motive. Citing the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted all accused, and allowed the appeals.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Admissibility and Reliability - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 read with 34 - The court examined the dying declarations recorded by Special Executive Magistrate (PW2) and PSI Nikam and found material infirmities: the declarant had 92% burns, was in pain, answers were abrupt and unclear, no doctor's endorsement of fitness, inconsistencies between the two declarations, and failure to examine the investigating officer who recorded one dying declaration. Held that dying declarations cannot be relied upon when they suffer from such infirmities and lack corroboration (Paras 9-15). B) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Corroboration Requirement - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 read with 34 - The court noted that dying declaration must inspire confidence and be consistent; here, the two dying declarations were contradictory as to the role of the children and number of matchsticks, and the spot panchnama only found one matchstick, not matching the claim that all three accused threw matchsticks. No other circumstantial evidence corroborated the dying declarations. Held that conviction solely on such dying declarations is unsafe (Paras 9-15, 17). C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - The prosecution alleged common intention among husband and two women. The court found no evidence of prior meeting of minds or presence of the two women at the spot except the dying declaration. Neighbours and brother turned hostile, no evidence of illicit relations. Held that common intention not proved beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 5-6, 10-12, 18). D) Evidence Law - Hostile Witnesses - Effect - The prosecution's key witnesses including panch, neighbours, and brother turned hostile and did not support the case. The court held that no adverse inference can be drawn from their hostility, and the remaining evidence was insufficient (Paras 7, 13, 16). E) Criminal Law - Standard of Proof - Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof - The court stressed that however strong the suspicion, it cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction set aside (Para 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is justified based on the evidence, particularly the dying declarations and circumstantial evidence; Whether the prosecution has established guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted all three accused of all charges. The court held that the dying declarations were not reliable, suffered from material infirmities, and lacked corroboration. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Law Points
- Conviction cannot be based solely on dying declarations when they are not corroborated and suffer from material infirmities
- Dying declaration must be recorded by a competent person
- with fitness endorsement
- and must be clear and consistent
- In cases of 92% burns
- the ability to speak and give a coherent statement is questionable
- Suspicion however strong cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt
