The Court found inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the dying declarations, leading to the acquittal of Piraji, who was initially sentenced to life imprisonment.
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench has acquitted Piraji, who was previously convicted of murdering his wife, Komal, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, comprising Justices Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, found substantial inconsistencies in the dying declarations and procedural lapses during their recording, which rendered them unreliable for sustaining a conviction.
The case revolved around the death of Komal, who had sustained severe burn injuries and succumbed to them on July 23, 2019. The prosecution heavily relied on two dying declarations made by Komal, which attributed her injuries to her husband, Piraji. However, the defense challenged the credibility of these declarations, pointing out inconsistencies and questioning Komal's mental state at the time of making these statements.
The High Court meticulously examined the dying declarations and highlighted several discrepancies. It noted that Komal had suffered 96% burn injuries and was administered sedatives, raising doubts about her mental fitness to give a reliable statement. The Court observed that the dying declarations were inconsistent with each other and lacked corroborative evidence. Moreover, procedural lapses, such as the absence of proper medical endorsements regarding Komal's mental state and the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses, further weakened the prosecution's case.
The Court emphasized that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of doubtful dying declarations, especially when the declarant's mental fitness is questionable. It reiterated the need for corroborative evidence in cases where dying declarations suffer from inconsistencies and procedural irregularities.
This judgment underscores the critical importance of ensuring that dying declarations are recorded with utmost care and are free from any doubt or infirmity. The High Court's decision to acquit Piraji not only highlights the need for stringent procedural adherence but also reinforces the principle of extending the benefit of doubt to the accused in cases of unreliable evidence.
Bottom line:-
Conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained solely on the basis of inconsistent and doubtful dying declarations in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302
- Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114(g)
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 481
Piraji v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB)(Aurangabad Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2894509
