Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal appeal against the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of the first wife of appellant no.1. The deceased and the appellants resided in separate portions of the same house with a common courtyard. A dispute arose over the sale proceeds of a mare, leading to a quarrel on the morning of 23.11.2013. The prosecution alleged that during the quarrel, appellant no.2 poured kerosene on the deceased and appellant no.1 set her ablaze. The deceased's son Pralhad (PW1), who was present initially, went to call neighbours and returned to find his mother on fire. He and others extinguished the flames and transported her to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani. On the way, the deceased allegedly made an oral dying declaration to PW1 implicating both appellants. At the hospital, two written dying declarations were recorded—the first by Police Constable Giri (PW3) after a doctor certified her consciousness, and the second by Naib Tahsildar Jadhav (PW6) in the presence of another doctor. The deceased succumbed to 100% burns the same night. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302 IPC sentencing them to life imprisonment and fine, but acquitted them under Section 201 IPC. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court heard the appeal and delivered divided opinions, whereupon the matter was placed before a single judge under Section 392 CrPC read with Rule 7 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1980. The main issues before the single judge were whether the multiple dying declarations were reliable and consistent enough to sustain the conviction, whether the absence of an endorsement that the dying declarations were read over to the deceased was fatal, whether the oral dying declaration to PW1 was credible given the interested witness and contradictions, and whether the last seen together theory could independently prove guilt. The appellants contended that the dying declarations were improbable due to the deceased's 100% burns and unconsciousness, inconsistencies in the narratives, and lack of endorsement regarding reading over. They also argued that PW1's testimony was unreliable because of contradictions with his Section 161 CrPC statement and because DW1, a relative traveling in the same vehicle, denied any such declaration. The State argued that the dying declarations were materially consistent, the consciousness endorsements by two doctors were valid, and minor contradictions did not vitiate them. It also urged that the last seen together theory applied, as the appellants were present in the house and the deceased was found burning in the common courtyard without any alternative explanation from the defence. The court's analysis focused on the evidentiary value of the dying declarations, the legal requirement of reading-over endorsement, the credibility of PW1, and the applicability of the last seen together doctrine. The judgment, pronounced on 12.06.2018, is only partially excerpted and does not contain the final order or detailed reasoning.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declarations - Multiple Declarations and Consistency - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The prosecution relied on two written dying declarations and one oral declaration to Pralhad (PW1). The appellant argued inconsistencies as to who poured kerosene and who lit the match, and the deceased's consciousness given 100% burns. The respondent contended minor variations do not affect material consistency. The court examined whether dying declarations with such inconsistencies could sustain conviction. (Paras 3-8) B) Criminal Law - Dying Declarations - Endorsement of Reading Over - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32; Supreme Court Precedent - The appellant argued that absence of endorsement by recording officers that the dying declaration was read over to the deceased and admitted as true, rendered them unreliable, citing Shaikh Bakshu v. State of Maharashtra. The court examined the legal requirement of such endorsement for admissibility and reliability. (Para 4) C) Criminal Law - Dying Declarations - Oral Declaration to Relative - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - The deceased's son Pralhad (PW1) testified that on the way to hospital, the deceased named the accused. The appellant challenged its credibility due to interested witness, contradiction with Section 161 CrPC statement, and denial by defence witness Nivrutti (DW1), who was in the same vehicle. The court assessed the probative value of such oral dying declaration. (Paras 3, 5, 7) D) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Together Theory - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 - The prosecution invoked the last seen together theory, as the accused and deceased lived in same house and were present at the scene. The deceased was found burning in the common courtyard after a quarrel. In absence of explanation from accused, complicity could be inferred. The court examined whether this theory alone could support conviction. (Paras 8, 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations (Exhibit16, 36 and oral) are reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC despite objections regarding the victim's consciousness, inconsistencies, and absence of reading-over endorsement, and whether the last seen together theory can independently establish guilt.
Law Points
- Dying declarations can be sole basis of conviction if consistent and voluntary
- multiple dying declarations with minor inconsistencies not fatal
- endorsement of reading over dying declaration to deceased not mandatory if otherwise reliable
- last seen together theory requires proximity and lack of explanation
- burden on accused under Section 106 Evidence Act
