Summary
The appellant's wife consumed a poisonous substance about two years after marriage and died some weeks later. In a first dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate after a doctor certified her fit, she said she took a medicine by mistake and suspected no one. Three days later, a second declaration before another Magistrate, with her relatives in the hospital and no medical fitness certificate, accused the appellant and his parents of forcing it on her. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304-B IPC but acquitted his parents on the same evidence, and the High Court reduced the sentence. Applying Lakhan, the Court held the first declaration more reliable, as tutoring of the second could not be ruled out. The appellant was given the same benefit of doubt as his parents and acquitted.
Issues
- Which of two inconsistent dying declarations, both recorded by Judicial Magistrates, could be relied upon to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC.
- Whether the appellant could be convicted on the same evidence on which his co-accused parents were given the benefit of doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction for dowry death rested on the second dying declaration. Once the first, exculpatory declaration was preferred as more reliable, the conviction could not stand. (¶¶ 1, 4, 20, 22)
Held
- A dying declaration found true and reliable, made when the declarant was physically and mentally fit and free from tutoring or duress, can alone found a conviction. Where several declarations conflict, one recorded by a higher officer such as a Magistrate is generally preferred if nothing casts suspicion on it. Otherwise the court must scrutinise the facts carefully to decide which declaration deserves reliance. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The first declaration was recorded after a doctor certified the deceased fit. Only the doctor was present, the Magistrate satisfied herself before and after that the statement was voluntary, and the doctor endorsed that she stayed conscious. The second was recorded three days later without any medical fitness opinion while her relatives were at the hospital, so tutoring could not be ruled out. The first declaration was more reliable. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20)
- The prosecution did not examine the Magistrate who recorded the first declaration, or the DSP who found the second tutored and unsupported by any witness. Both had to be called by the defence, which raised serious doubt about the fairness of the investigation. (¶¶ 12, 18, 19)
- The trial court acquitted the appellant's parents on the very same evidence by giving them the benefit of doubt. The appellant was entitled to the same benefit, and his conviction on identical evidence was improper. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed. The conviction under Section 304-B IPC and the judgments of the trial court and High Court are set aside; the appellant is acquitted and his bail bonds discharged.