Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the death of Gayatri, who sustained 93% burn injuries at her matrimonial home in Majari Colliery, Chandrapur. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry by her mother-in-law, Diyawati (accused no.1), and her husband, Sanjay (accused no.3), along with other family members. It was claimed that at the time of marriage in 1995, a dowry of Rs.10,000/- and gold ornaments were given as per custom. The deceased frequently returned to her parental home complaining of ill-treatment, beatings, and demands for additional money. On 25-6-1997, an incident occurred wherein the deceased suffered burn injuries. According to the prosecution, the mother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire after a quarrel over using the latrine alone. Two dying declarations were recorded—one by Head Constable Bhoyar (Exhibit 68) and another by Executive Magistrate Gajbhe (Exhibit 77). Both statements implicated the mother-in-law as the assailant, but they contained material discrepancies regarding the time and sequence of events. The trial court acquitted all accused in Sessions Case No. 118/1997, finding the evidence unreliable. The State appealed, contending that the dying declarations and the testimony of relatives (P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5) proved the guilt of the accused. The High Court examined the evidence afresh. It noted significant contradictions between the two dying declarations: one stated the incident occurred at midnight after the deceased was awakened to open a water tap, while the other said it happened when she returned from the latrine accompanied by the mother-in-law. The court further observed that the medical officer (P.W.8) admitted that the deceased was administered painkillers and tranquilizers shortly before the dying declarations were recorded, and that a person under the influence of tranquilizers would not be mentally fit to give a statement. This cast serious doubt on the voluntariness and reliability of the dying declarations. The testimonies of P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.5 (the deceased's relatives) were also found to be inconsistent: P.W.5 spoke of physical beatings by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, while P.W.2 and P.W.3 attributed the marital discord to the husband’s alleged illicit relations. These contradictions rendered their evidence insufficient to establish cruelty or dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court held that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was reasonable and did not call for interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Multiple dying declarations recorded by different authorities contained material contradictions regarding the sequence of events and the role of the accused; the first stated that the mother-in-law woke the deceased at midnight, whereas the second stated that the mother-in-law accompanied her to the latrine - Held that contradictory dying declarations cannot form the sole basis for conviction, and the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 13-14). B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Fitness of Declarant - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - The medical officer admitted that the deceased was administered painkillers and tranquilizers shortly before the dying declarations were recorded, and that a person under the influence of tranquilizers would not be mentally fit - Held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was mentally fit to make the dying declarations, rendering them unreliable (Paras 11-12). C) Criminal Law - Related Witnesses - Corroboration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A, 304B - The testimony of the deceased's relatives (P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5) was inconsistent, with P.W.5 stating ill-treatment by mother-in-law and sister-in-law while P.W.2 and P.W.3 spoke of illicit relations as the grievance - Held that such material contradictions among interested witnesses rendered their evidence insufficient to prove cruelty or dowry demand (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused based on inconsistencies in dying declarations and the evidence of interested witnesses, and whether the appeal against acquittal should be allowed.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents/accused was upheld.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be consistent and voluntary to be sole basis for conviction
- Medical evidence must conclusively prove the declarant's fitness
- Contradictory multiple dying declarations cannot sustain conviction
- Accused entitled to benefit of doubt when prosecution evidence is inconsistent
- Evidence of interested relatives requires independent corroboration
- Appeal against acquittal dismissed when trial court's view is reasonable
