Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench arose from the conviction of four accused persons under Sections 302 and 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule. The accused were family members of the deceased, Anitabai, including her brother-in-law, his wife, and her parents-in-law. The prosecution alleged that on 14-08-2014, following a dispute over a share in ancestral and Bhudan land, all accused entered the deceased's house, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her, accused Nos.3 and 4 caught hold of her, and accused No.1 lit a matchstick, setting her on fire. They then locked the door from outside. Neighbours extinguished the fire and shifted her to hospital. A dying declaration was recorded by ASI Khairnar at 3:30 a.m. on 15-08-2014, and another by an Executive Magistrate later. Anitabai died on 19-08-2014. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 302/34 and 342/34 IPC, acquitting them under Section 452/34. On appeal, the main legal issue was the reliability of the dying declarations. The court noted that ASI Khairnar had died and could not be examined, making his recorded dying declaration inadmissible as the accused had no chance to cross-examine. The Executive Magistrate's dying declaration was scrutinized and found unreliable due to contradictions: the deceased's thumbs were burnt, yet a thumb impression was obtained; the medical officer initially noted a history of self-immolation, later claiming it was given by a relative, and the spot panchnama did not show fire marks on walls or a door latch, contrary to the prosecution story. The husband, a natural witness, was not examined. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside, and all accused acquitted.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Admissibility When Recorder Cannot be Examined - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 161, 162 - A dying declaration recorded by a police officer who died before trial and thus could not be cross-examined cannot be taken into consideration because it denies the accused the opportunity to challenge its authenticity and veracity. Held that such a dying declaration is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon. (Para 12) B) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Reliability and Corroboration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Even a dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate must inspire confidence; infirmities such as unexplained thumb impressions on burnt hands and contradictions in medical history create doubt about its reliability. Held that where a dying declaration creates a doubt, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. (Paras 13, 14) C) Criminal Trial - Prosecution Burden - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 313, 378 - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; failure to examine material witnesses like the husband, contradictions in spot panchnama regarding fire marks and door latch, and history of past suicide attempt weaken the prosecution case. Held that in the absence of corroborative evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, leading to acquittal. (Paras 14, 15, final order)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declarations recorded during the investigation were reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted all the accused of all charges. The court held that the dying declaration recorded by ASI Khairnar could not be considered due to his unavailability for cross-examination. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate suffered from infirmities regarding the thumb impression and contradictions in medical history, creating doubt. The prosecution failed to corroborate the dying declarations with other evidence, and the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.
Law Points
- Dying declaration recorded by a police officer who could not be examined due to death is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon
- Dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate must be free from infirmities and inspire confidence
- Benefit of doubt must go to accused when prosecution evidence is insufficient and creates doubt
