Supreme Court of India – Acquittal Granted, Benefit of Doubt Extended

a) Inconsistent dying declarations require corroboration (Para 12-14) b) Benefit of doubt must be given where the prosecution’s case lacks consistency and credible supporting evidence (Para 17-18) c) Total reliance on a questionable dying declaration is unsafe for conviction (Para 14)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court. The Court held that due to inconsistent dying declarations and absence of corroborative evidence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the appellant.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 (‘COI’) – Article 21 – Right to Fair Trial

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) – Section 302 – Punishment for Murder – Section 307 – Attempt to Murder

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) – Section 164 – Recording of Statements – Section 313 – Examination of the Accused

Subjects:

Dying Declaration – Contradictory Statements – Benefit of Doubt – Corroborative Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal – Judicial Magistrate – Hostile Witnesses

Nature of the Litigation: Criminal Appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the conviction and life sentence imposed under Section 302 of IPC by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court of Madras.

Remedy Sought: Appellant prayed for acquittal by challenging the validity of the dying declaration and the lack of corroborative evidence.

Reason for Filing the Case: Appellant was convicted for allegedly causing his wife’s death by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene, resulting in her demise after three weeks of hospitalization.

Previous Decisions:

1. Trial Court – Conviction under Section 302 of IPC – Life Imprisonment

2. High Court of Madras – Upheld the Trial Court’s Decision on 28.02.2012

Issues:

a) Whether the dying declaration recorded on 18.09.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate was reliable in light of earlier inconsistent statements made by the deceased. b) Whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of a suspicious dying declaration without corroborative evidence.

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant: a) Inconsistent dying declarations undermine the credibility of the evidence. b) Lack of corroboration from medical and witness testimonies. c) Hostile prosecution witnesses failed to support the case.

Respondent: a) Dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate should be treated as substantive evidence. b) Recovery of kerosene can and matchstick corroborates the deceased’s statement.