Court sets aside conviction due to irreconcilable dying declarations and lack of evidence corroborating later statements.
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has acquitted Dudekula Somaiah, previously convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, after finding inconsistencies in multiple dying declarations and a lack of corroborative evidence. The judgment was delivered by Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, who emphasized the importance of evaluating all evidence when faced with conflicting dying declarations.
The case dates back to January 2007, when Somaiah's wife, Smt. Dudekula Fathima, suffered fatal burn injuries. Initially, Fathima's statement to the attending doctor at the hospital indicated that the injuries were accidental, occurring while she was asleep. However, subsequent declarations made to a Judicial Magistrate and the police implicated Somaiah, alleging that he had set her on fire following a domestic dispute.
The trial court had convicted Somaiah based on these later declarations, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, the High Court found that the trial court overlooked critical evidence, including the initial statement recorded by the doctor and corroborative testimony from the couple's child, which supported the accidental nature of the incident.
Justice Chakravarthi noted that the trial court erred by relying heavily on the later declarations without addressing the inconsistencies or the initial declaration. The court also highlighted the failure to present the Judicial Magistrate as a witness to verify the circumstances under which the later dying declarations were recorded.
The judgment underscores the necessity for courts to carefully scrutinize all evidence, especially when dealing with multiple and conflicting dying declarations, to ensure a fair trial. The High Court's decision to acquit Somaiah was based on the principle that the first declaration, deemed credible and reliable, should hold precedence in the absence of corroboration for subsequent declarations.
Bottom line:-
When multiple dying declarations are inconsistent and irreconcilable, the court must carefully examine the rest of the evidence to determine the reliability of incriminatory declarations.
Statutory provision(s): Section 304 Part-II IPC, Section 498A IPC, Section 302 IPC, Section 313 Cr.P.C., Section 32 Evidence Act, Section 209 Cr.P.C., Section 405 Cr.P.C.
Dudekula Somaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2901013
