Consistent, medically certified dying declarations can sustain a murder conviction despite an unproved exculpatory statement.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2016 for offences under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, while being acquitted under Sections 498A and 504 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that, after a quarrel, the appellant poured kerosene on his wife, Manisha Paraskar, and set her on fire at about 4:00 a.m. on 12 September 2015.

She sustained approximately 87% burns and was taken first to Saswad PHC and thereafter to Sassoon Hospital, where she died on 14 September 2015.

The prosecution relied principally on two written dying declarations recorded on 13 September 2015, both bearing medical endorsements that Manisha was conscious, oriented and capable of making a statement.

The appellant maintained that the fire was accidental and had resulted from a stove bursting.

Whether the two written dying declarations, supported by medical endorsements and other evidence, were reliable and sufficient to establish that the appellant intentionally poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire?

Whether the alleged earlier statement dated 12 September 2015, stating that the deceased had caught fire because of a bursting stove, required the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution or created reasonable doubt in favour of the appellant?

Whether the oral dying declarations and the appellant’s conduct at the scene corroborated the written dying declarations and disproved the defence of accidental burning?

Whether the evidence supported the appellant’s convictions under Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC in addition to the conviction under Section 302 IPC?

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning the offence of murder, and considered the evidentiary value of dying declarations as substantive evidence where the declarant was medically certified to be conscious, oriented and capable of making a statement.

It also applied the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act that facts especially within the knowledge of an accused may require explanation by him, particularly where the incident occurred inside a room occupied only by the accused and the deceased.

The Court further applied the rule that an unproved document cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence; accordingly, the alleged statement dated 12 September 2015 was not treated as proved because neither its maker nor the doctor who allegedly endorsed it was examined.

Conviction under Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC required independent evidentiary support for the ingredients of those offences, which the Court found absent.

The appellant was also entitled to set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court found the written dying declarations reliable because the police-recorded declaration was made in the presence of the medical officer, who certified that Manisha was conscious and capable of giving a statement, while the declaration recorded by the Nayab Tahsildar contained medical endorsements at the beginning, middle and end of the recording.

The Court held that the greater detail in the police-recorded declaration did not by itself make it unreliable.

The Tahsildar’s declaration specifically stated that the appellant poured kerosene on Manisha while she was sleeping and set her on fire, thereby attributing a direct and specific role to him.

The alleged earlier exculpatory statement was not proved through competent evidence and therefore could not undermine the prosecution case.

The oral declarations made immediately to PW-7 and PW-8 were considered consistent with the written declarations and were treated as natural corroboration, since both witnesses had reached the room immediately after hearing the commotion.

The appellant’s conduct—remaining in the room, failing to extinguish the fire or call for help, and offering no satisfactory explanation—was inconsistent with his defence that the fire was accidental.

Taken together, the dying declarations, oral evidence, medical evidence and surrounding circumstances established the appellant’s guilt for murder beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the Court found no sufficient evidence to sustain the separate convictions under Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC.

The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC—life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000—were maintained.

The convictions and sentences under Sections 307, 323 and 506 IPC were set aside for want of sufficient supporting evidence.

The appellant was granted set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.