Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal appeal before the Bombay High Court against the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 341, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was earlier convicted by the trial court based on a dying declaration, while being acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution's case was that the deceased, a 14-year-old girl, had been obstructed, teased, and threatened by the appellant, which led her to commit suicide by self-immolation. Initially, two dying declarations were recorded—one by an Assistant Police Inspector and another by a Special Judicial Magistrate—in which the deceased stated that her burn injuries were accidental, occurring while she was preparing tea. Subsequently, after her father lodged a complaint, a third dying declaration was recorded by the same magistrate, wherein the deceased alleged that the appellant had caught her hand and threatened her, causing her anguish and leading to the suicide attempt. The trial court relied solely on the third dying declaration to convict the appellant for the lesser offences but acquitted him under Section 306 IPC. The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the third dying declaration (Exhibit 29) was credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction, given the contradictory earlier declarations and the lack of corroborative evidence. The appellant argued that the third dying declaration was unreliable and that the trial court erred in ignoring the first two consistent declarations. The State supported the conviction. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, noted the settled legal principle that a conviction can be based on a sole dying declaration only if it inspires confidence, and if it creates doubt, corroboration is necessary, as held in Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana. The court found that Exhibit 29 was not only contradictory to Exhibits 12 and 27 but also appeared to have been made under the influence of the father, and no independent witnesses supported the prosecution's case. The court held that the third dying declaration was unreliable and uncorroborated, and therefore the conviction could not be sustained. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, ordering refund of fines and cancellation of bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability and Corroboration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - Where there are multiple contradictory dying declarations by the deceased, the court must scrutinize them carefully; if the dying declaration relied upon creates doubt, further corroboration is required - The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 341, 354, 506 IPC based solely on the third dying declaration (Exhibit 29) while the earlier two dying declarations (Exhibits 12 and 27) stated the deceased sustained burns while preparing tea - The High Court found Exhibit 29 to be contradictory to the prior declarations and uncorroborated, thus unreliable - Held that the conviction based on such dying declaration cannot be sustained and the appellant is entitled to acquittal (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the third dying declaration (Exhibit 29) was reliable and could be the sole basis for conviction under Sections 341, 354, 506 IPC when it contradicted the earlier two dying declarations (Exhibits 12 and 27) and lacked corroboration.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment was quashed and set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was on bail, and his bail bond stood cancelled. Any fine amount paid was to be refunded.
Law Points
- Conviction based on sole dying declaration requires it to inspire confidence
- if dying declaration creates doubt
- corroboration is necessary
- contradictory dying declarations must be carefully scrutinized
- part reliance on unreliable dying declaration not permissible.
