Holding

The dying declarations were infirm and unreliable, so the prosecution failed to establish the charge of murder, leading to the setting aside of the conviction.

Summary

The deceased Rubina, a married woman, died from severe burn injuries allegedly caused by her husband, sister‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law who were charged under IPC s.302 read with s.34 and s.498‑A. The trial court and the Bombay High Court convicted the accused primarily on two dying declarations recorded within a short interval: one by a police officer at 6:00 pm and another by a Naib Tehsildar at 7:15‑7:30 pm. The Supreme Court examined discrepancies such as the timing of the declarations relative to the police’s receipt of information, conflicting statements about the place of the incident, and the inconsistency regarding who brought the victim to the hospital. It also noted the absence of the letter authorising the second declaration, lack of any record that the declaration was read to the victim, and the possibility of tutoring by relatives. Finding these infirmities to undermine the credibility of the dying declarations, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the convictions under s.302/34 were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

Issues considered

Whether the two dying declarations are admissible and reliable under Evidence Act s.32.
Whether the inconsistencies in the dying declarations (timing, place of occurrence, person who brought the victim) affect their credibility.
Whether the prosecution established the elements of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34 beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the presence of relatives during the recording of the declarations raises a risk of tutoring.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 498-A

Subjects

dying declarationevidence actcredibilitymurderIPC 302section 34acquittalforensic evidenceburn injuriestutoring

Judgment

A SHAIKAH BAKSHU AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUNE 21, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Evidence Act,1872:

s.32-Dying declaration- In a case under s. 302134 !PC two dying
C declaration were recorded within a span of less than one and half an hour-
The time of recording first one is even before intimation of the crime had
reached the Police Station- Facts regarding place of occurrence and as to
who took the victim to hospital stated in dying declaration being contrary
to record-Copy of letter stated to have been written to Naib Tehsildar for
D recording second dying declaration not produced-No mention in dying
declaration that it was read over to victim-Held: Jn view of the infirmities,
accusations of prosecution have not been established-Conviction recorded
by trial court and High Court set aside-Pena/ Code, 1860-s.302134.

Penal Code, I 860:
E
s. 302134-Death of married woman by burn injuries-Husband, sister-
in-law and mother-in-law of victim convicted by trial court and High Court
on basis of two dying declaration-Held: In view of various infirmities in
dying declarations, conviction set aside-Evidence Act, 1872-Dying
declaration.
F
Appellants, namely, the husband, the sister-in-law and the mother-in-
law of the deceased were prosecuted for offences punishable u/ss. 302/34 and
498-A/34 IPC. The prosecution case against them was that they set the victim
ablaze by pouring kerosene on her. The trial court, placing reliance on the
G two dying declarations, convicted them of the offences charged. On appeal, It
was contended for the accused-appellants that the dying declarations were
totally unreliable and the place of occurrence was differently stated. High
Court confirmed the view of the trial court that the two clying declarations
were credible and cogent and maintained the conviction u/ss. 302134 IPC, but
recorded acquittal as regards charge u/s. 498-A IPC. Aggrieved, the accused
H 1130
SHAIKAH BAKSHU v. ST ATE OF MAHRASHTRA 1131

-...,., field the instant appeal. A
Allowing the appea~ the Court

HELD: I.I. The dying declaration Exht.26 was claimed to ha\'e been
recorded by the Naib Tehsildar between 7.15 and 7.30 p.m, while the other
dying declaration, Exht. 31 was purported to have been recorded by PW 3, the B
Police Officer, at 6.00 p.m. PW 3 stated that intimation regarding occurrence
was received at 6.30 p.m as per Exht. 30. If the information of the incident
was received at 6.30 p.m., the question of recording dying declaration before
that time does not arise. Besides, from a perusal of Exht. 26 it appears that
place·of occurrence stated therein was different than that mentioned in the
'Panchnama'. With reference to the 'Panchnama' it appears that no burn c
marks were found in the bed room; on the other hand, burn marks were found
in the kitchen. It has not been established as to what was the necessity of a
second dying declaration if there was already a dying declaration in existence
recorded by PW 3. It is also to be seen that the letter requiring the Naib
Tehsildar to record the dying declaration was not produced by him nor the D
copy thereof was produced by the prosecution. The trial court and the High
- ... Court noted that the condition of the deceased was very poor, as was stated by
..... the Medical Officer, and it was during deteriorating since 6.10 p.m. There is
no mention in the dying declaration that it was read over and explained to the
deceased. [Para 8) [1134-F-H; 1135-B-G)
E
1.2. So far as the presence of the relatives and the tutoring aspect is
concerned, the High Court held that there cannot be a possibility of tutoring
the deceased for falsely implicating appellants in the offence because of the
promptness in recording the declaration by PW 1 and PW 3. The conclusion
is clearly based on surmises and conjectures. (Para 8) (1135-H; 1136-A-BJ
F
I.
1.3. Another fallacy in the conclusions of the High Court and the trial
Court was that mere change of the place of occurrence as borne out in the
dying declaration, as projected by the prosecution with reference to the spot
panchnama was not material. According to the deceased, the occurrence took
place in the bed room. It is to be noted that no mark of bum injury was noticed G
in the bed room and they were noticed in the kitchen. High Court noted even
if spot of occurrence has not been correctly stated by the deceased same is of
no consequence. That certainly has effect on the credibility of the dying
declaration, contrary to what the High Court has observed.
""
[Para 8111136-B-C)
H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A 1.4. Another aspect which assumes great importance is that in the dying y.-
declaration the deceased stated that she was brought to the hospital by a
neighbour but the official records show that she was brought to the hospital
by accused no.2 i.e. sister-in-law. It was categorically asked to the doctor
whether in the admission register it was recorded that the injuries were due
B to the accidental burn. He stated that the witness has not gone thought the
register of that date. (Para 81 (1136-C-DI

1.5 In view of the infirmities the inevitable conclusion is that the
accusations of prosecution have not been established. The judgment of the
High Court cannot be maintained and the same is set aside.
C (Para 9 and 101 (1136-EJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 833 of
2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.09.2005 of the High Court cif
Jadicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of
D 2005.
Sanjay R. Hegde, Ramesh Shivajirao Jadhav and Naresh Kumar for the
Appellant. \

Ravindra K. Adsure for the Respondent.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Oivison Bench of the
Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. Conviction of the appellants under
F Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC') was confinned while setting aside the conviction and sentence relatable
to offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC. All
the appellants were convicted by learned lst Additional Sessions Judge,
Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 214/2001.

G 3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as under:

Rubina (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was married to appellant
No. I Sk. Bakshu about 8 days prior to the alleged i11cident, which took place
on 19.8.2001 at about 4 p.m. in the house of the appellants. While the
deceased was staying in the house of her in-laws, the appellant No.2-Janubai
H Shakur, sister in law of the deceased and appellant No.3 Safirabi Sk. Wahed,
SHAIKAHBAKSHUv.STATEOFMAHRASHTRA(PASAYAT.J.) 1133
mother in law of the deceased caught hold of her and her husband. the A
appellant no. I Sk. Bakshu by pouring kerosene on her person. set Rubina on
fire. The deceased suffered bum injuries. While she was burning. her father
in law extinguished the fire by pouring water on her. Thereafter. the neighbours
had brought the deceased to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani. Court witness Dr.
Bhagwan Dhutmal was on duty and after examining the patient, he started
treatment. Radhakishan Katare (PW-3), who was working as ASI in Police Out B
Post in General Hospital. Parbhani, secured the MLC Certificate from the
·medical officer concerning the deceased Rubina, which is at Exhibit 13. After
ascertaining from the medical officer regarding consciousness of the patient
to make a declaration, Radhakishan (PW-3) recorded statement of the deceased
on the same day i.e. 19.8.2001at6 p.m. The said dying declaration is at Exhibit C
31. Thereafter, a letter was addressed to PWl- Naib Tahsildar for recording
dying declaration of Rubina and on receipt of intimation, Narhari Pandit. Naib
Tahsildar (PW-1), proceeded to the hospital. After ascertaining the physical
and mental condition of the patient from the medical ofticer, the Naib Tahsildar
recorded statement of Rubina at 7-15 p.m. which is at Exhibit 26. The medical D
officer Dr. Bhagwan endorsed on both the dying declarations to the effect
that the patient was conscious oriented in time and space and was able to
· make a statement. The first dying declaration (Exh.3 l) was recorded between
6 p.m. to 6-10 p.m. and the second dying declaration (Exh.26), which was
· recorded by Naib Tahsildar was between 7-15 to 7-30 p.m. on the same day
i.e. 19.8.2001. The deceased died at 8-30 p.m. on 19.8.2001. According to the E
post mortem report, the deceased had suffered 67% bum injuries. The post
mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ashok Janapurkar (PW-2). The
post mortem report is at Exh_ibit 28. The cause of death, according to the
medical officer, was due to cardio respiratory failure due to superficial deep
66% bums. Anil Gaikwad (PW-6) conducted the investigation of the case. He
\
had drawn spot panchnama and recorded statements of witnesses. All the F
appellants were arrested on 20.8.2001. The clothes of appellants were also
seized. The seizure panchnamas are at Exhibits 42, 43 and 44. On 21.8.200 l,
viscera and articles seized on the spot were sent to Chemical Analyser, whose
report is Exhibit 15. In viscera, no poison was detected. Kerosene was detected
on the clothes of accused, which were seized. After completion of investigation, G
the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed by JMFC, Parbhani, to
the Court of Sessions for trial. The charges in Exhibit 1Owere framed and the
appellants were tried before the Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and
- ""' came to be tried.

H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A The prosecution examined 6 witnesses. In their statement u/s 313 of
Cr.P.C. the appellants denied the incident in question and alleged that the
witnesses were demanding money and for that reason, they are' deposing
falsely. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and Dr. Bhagwan Pandit was
examined as Court witness.

B 4. Placing reliance on the dying declarations purportedly to have been
made by the deceased, the trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted
them and imposed imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs:IOO/- for the
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In respect
of offence relatable to Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC custodial
C sentence of 3 years and fine of Rs. I 00/- with default stipulation were imposed.

5. In appeal, it was urged that the dying declarations are totally unreliable.
The alleged place of occurrence has been differently stated. No explanat.ion
has been offered as to why there was necessity of recording two dying
declarations. Though there was clear evidence of tutoring, the trial court did
D not attach any importance and there has been suppression of the station
diary entry. All these go to show that prosecution has concocted a false case.
The State's response was that after analyzing the evidence in detail conviction
has been recorded.

6. The High Court confirmed the view of the trial court holding that the
E dying declaration was credible and cogent. Therefore, conviction for offence
relatable to Section 302 read with Section 34 was maintained. But acquittal
was recorded under Section 498-A read with Section 34 !PC.

7. Stands taken before the High Court were reiterated in this appeal.

F 8. The dying declarations have been marked as Exh.26 and Exh.31. Exh.
26 was claimed to have been recorded by the Naib Tehsildar (PW-I) between
7.15 and 7.30 p.m. while Exh.31 was purported to have been recorded by the
Police Officer (PW-3) at 6.00 p.m. In the Exh. 26, it ·was stated that the
deceased did not know name of the mother in law and that the A-2 and A-
G 3 were residents of Ramabai Nagar whereas the place ·Where the alleged
incident took place was Panch~heel road. It was stated that the neighbour had
taken deceased to hospital. Police Officer (PW-3) stated that intimation .
regarding occurrence was received at 6.30 p.m. vide Exh.30. Strangely, the
dying declaration was recorded even before the intimation had reached i.e. at
6.10 p.m. There was a point raised about the number of marriages of the
H
SHAIKAH BAKSHU v. ST ATE OF MAHRASHTRA (PASAYA T. J. J 1135

deceased. Interestingly. the mother of the deceased supported the defence A
version. PW-3 in his evidence stated that he had accompanied Naib Tehsildar
(PW-1 ). According to Trial Court and High Court the basic question was who
recorded the dying declaration first. So far as the dying declaration purported
to have been recorded by Naib Tehsildar (PW-1) is concerned, he has stated
that one constable accompanied him in the hospital. He did not say that B
police inspector PW-3, accompanied him though PW-3 claimed it to be so.
With reference to the Panchnama it appears that no bum marks were found
in the bed room on the other hand bum marks were found in the kitchen. As
noted above, Exh.30 shows that ASI had received intimation at 6.30 p.m.
Dying declaration shows it was recorded between 6.00 to 6. IO p.m. If the
intimation was received at 6.30 p.m. question of recording the dying declaration C
before that time does not arise. The trial court accepted this position to be
correct from the record. But it made a new case that the time recorded to be
6.30 p.m. appears to be a mistake made by ASL That was not the case of
the prosecution and, in fact, PW-3 accepted that the intimation was received
at 6.30 p.m. and the dying declaration was recorded later by the Naib Tehsildar.
It has not been explained as to what was the necessity of a second dying D
declaration, if there was already a dying declaration in existence recorded by
PW-3, who stated that he had accompanied PW-1. PW-I in his statement
stated that on 19.8.2001, on the basis of a letter requiring him to record dying
declaration of the person who was admitted to the hospital. He went to the
hospital at 7.00 p.m., met the medical officer in the hospital and thereafter he E
requested the medical officer to show the person to him. The letter in question
was not produced by him. The trial court came to the conclusion that PW-
3, the medical officer and the constable reached the Bums Ward at about 7.10
p.m. As noted above, it was the evidence of PW-3 that he had accompanied
the Naib Tehsildar PW- I. Even if it is accepted as noted by the trial court
that the Naib Tehsildar has not produced the letter because it may be misplaced F
but nothing prevented the prosecution to produce the copy of the letter
which was purportedly written to the Naib Tehsildar. No effort in that regard
has been made. The trial court and the High Court noted that the condition
of the deceased was very poor as was stated by the medical officer and the
condition was deteriorating since 6.10 p.m. The trial court, however, held the G
dying declaration to be credible because the medical officer was present when
the dying declaration was recorded. There as no mention in the dying
declaration that it was read over and explained to the deceased. The Trial
court and the High Court concluded that even though it is not so stated, it
has to be presumed that it was read over and explained. The view is clearly
unacceptable. So far as the presence of the relatives and the tutoring aspect H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20071 7 S.C.R.

A is concerned. the High Court held that there cannot be a possibility of
tutoring Rubina for falsely implicating appellants in the offence because of
the promptness in recording the dying declaration by PW I and PW 3. The
conclusion is clearly based on sunnises and conjectures. Another fallacy in
the conclusions of the High Court and the trial Court was that mere change
B the place of occurrence as borne out in the dying declaration, as projected
by the prosecution with reference to the spot panchnama was not material.
According to the deceased, the occurrence took place in the bed room. It
is to be noted that no mark of bum injury was noticed in the bed room and
they were noticed in the kitchen. High Court noted even if spot of occurrence
has not been correctly stated by the deceased same is of no consequence.
C That certainly has effect on the credibility of the dying declaration, contrary
to what the High Court has observed. Another aspect which assumes great
importance is that in the dying declaration the deceased stated that she was
brought to the hospital by a neighbour but the official records show that she
was brought to the hospital by the accused no.2 i.e. sister-in-law. It was
categorically asked to the doctor whether in the admission register it was
D recorded that the injuries were due to the accidental bum. He stated that the
witness has not gone through the register of that date.

9. In view of the aforesaid infirmities the inevitable conclusion is that
the accusations of prosecution have not been established.

E I 0. The judgment of the High Court cannot be maintained and the same
is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the
charges. They be set forth at liberty if not required in any other case.

RP. Appeal allowed.

/