Summary
A husband challenged murder and intimidation convictions because his wife’s first two accounts attributed her burns to an accident, while a later dying declaration implicated him. The Court held that contradictory declarations required assessment against all surrounding evidence rather than automatic rejection of the later account. Kerosene residues, scene evidence and corroborated details supported the later declaration and contradicted the accident version. The convictions were upheld.
Issues
- How irreconcilable dying declarations should be evaluated.
- Whether absence of a medical fitness certificate and alleged tutoring undermined the later declaration.
- Whether the evidence supported the convictions despite the earlier accident accounts.
Held
- A truthful, voluntary and reliable dying declaration may sustain conviction. Multiple conflicting declarations require scrutiny of the entire evidence, declarant’s capacity, circumstances and possible tutoring; neither chronology nor incriminatory content alone determines preference. The earlier brief accounts also qualified as dying declarations. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 23, 26, 30, 31, 41)
- A doctor’s certificate is an important caution but not indispensable if fitness is otherwise established. Here the record, coherent narrative, absence of shown deterioration and witnesses supported capacity to make the later declaration. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40)
- The asserted property conspiracy was untenable, and the relatives’ presence and call to police did not establish tutoring. Threat by the husband and his proximity explained the earlier accounts on these facts. (¶¶ 32, 33, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60)
- Contemporaneous kerosene observations, forensic residues on both persons’ clothing, the can and scene evidence contradicted accidental ignition from leaking petrol. The neighbour’s account and detached petrol pipe corroborated specific details of the later declaration. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
Result
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the convictions and sentences under Sections 302 and 506 IPC intact. The appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled and he was directed to be taken into custody.