Summary
A woman with a disability was doused with kerosene and set on fire by two sisters-in-law, and died later. Her husband, the appellant, was convicted of cruelty under Section 498A IPC along with other in-laws. The Supreme Court acquitted him. In her first dying declaration, recorded by a Naib Tehsildar, she named only the sisters-in-law who set her on fire and said her husband was away; he in fact took her to hospital. Only a later police statement named him among those who taunted and beat her for dowry. The High Court had rejected that statement as unsafe, because it recorded that her condition was very bad. Her relatives turned hostile, and the recovered articles concerned only the burning.
Issues
- Whether the husband's conviction under Section 498A IPC could be sustained where the only evidence naming him was a second dying declaration recorded by the police, which the High Court itself had disbelieved.
Provisions considered
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The weight of a dying declaration depends on its surrounding circumstances and credibility; medical certification of fitness is a rule of caution (Laxman), and multiple inconsistent declarations must be tested against the whole record (Lakhan, Jagbir Singh). (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 19)
- Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860With the second dying declaration discredited, there was no other material proving cruelty by the appellant, and his conviction and sentence were set aside. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Held
- There is no stereotyped approach to dying declarations: who recorded it and whether a doctor certified fitness are fact-dependent, a certified and reliable declaration can found a conviction without corroboration, and where several declarations are inconsistent the court must examine the rest of the evidence to decide which is reliable. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 19)
- The first declaration (Ex. P-11), recorded by the Naib Tehsildar after medical examination, concerned the burning, named two sisters-in-law and stated that the appellant was out of the house; the second (Ex. P-26), recorded by the police, alone named the appellant among those inflicting dowry-related cruelty, and the High Court had disbelieved it because it recorded that her condition was very bad. (¶¶ 11, 12, 18, 20)
- The deceased's relatives did not support the prosecution and the seized articles related only to the burning incident, so with Ex. P-26 discredited no material remained to sustain the appellant's conviction under Section 498A. (¶¶ 18, 20, 21)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 2311 of 2022 allowed without costs; the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) judgment dated 18.04.2022 in CRA No. 148 of 2011 and the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC set aside.