Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, affirming the Gujarat High Court’s decision that relied upon the deceased’s dying declaration as trustworthy and corroborated by medical and physical evidence. The Court observed that minor discrepancies in multiple dying declarations do not undermine the evidentiary value of the first declaration, especially when supported by independent witnesses and material proof.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an incident where the appellant, along with a co-accused, allegedly conspired to kill a woman, Leelaben, and her young son while they were asleep in their hut. The appellant was accused of pouring kerosene on Leelaben and setting her ablaze, resulting in fatal burn injuries. Her son also sustained partial burns. Leelaben was taken to the Civil Hospital, Palanpur, where she later succumbed to her injuries. A complaint was lodged by her sister, following which the police conducted an investigation and filed a chargesheet against the accused.
The Trial Court acquitted both accused, citing discrepancies in the three dying declarations made by the deceased. However, the Gujarat High Court overturned this acquittal, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing her to life imprisonment with a fine. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging this conviction.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution’s case rested solely on inconsistent dying declarations and unreliable evidence. It was argued that the Trial Court had rightly acquitted the appellant after noting material contradictions among witnesses and documentary evidence.
It was further submitted that even if two views were possible, the High Court erred in interfering with the view adopted by the Trial Court, which had given the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Contentions of the State:
Opposing the appeal, the counsel for the State argued that each dying declaration must be independently assessed, and the first one, recorded by a doctor, clearly implicated the appellant. The deceased had specifically stated that her aunt-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire after she refused to accompany a man suggested by the appellant.
The State further relied on medical reports and postmortem findings which showed 100% burns, kerosene residue on the body and clothes, and recovery of an empty kerosene container from the scene. It was also noted that the deceased’s son, who slept beside her, sustained limited burn injuries, ruling out accidental fire.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the first dying declaration made to an independent witness, the doctor, was credible and consistent with physical evidence. The Court quoted the declaration where the deceased stated, “My aunt-in-law, Jemaben, poured kerosene on me and set me ablaze.” The Bench noted that the doctor had certified the deceased to be conscious and capable of giving her statement, which was corroborated by the police record and medical certificate describing “whole body and clothing having kerosene smelling burns about 100%.”
The Court held that, “Merely because there are minor discrepancies in the versions given by the prosecution witnesses with regard to the dying declaration, the first statement made before an independent witness cannot be ignored when it is supported by documentary and corroborative evidence.”
Referring to the precedent in Nallam Veera Stayanandam & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. the Court reiterated that credible dying declarations can form the sole basis of conviction if found reliable and voluntary.
The decision of the Court:
Concluding that the High Court had rightly reversed the acquittal, the Top Court held that only one view was possible based on the evidence, and the Trial Court had erred in granting the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the appeal, affirming the life sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.
Case Title: JEMABEN Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2017
Coram: Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. S. C. Birla (AOR), Subrat Birla
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Swati Ghildiyal (AOR), Rishi Yadav
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
