Reliability of a Dying Declaration Recorded by Police Consistent with Medical and Oral Evidence Overwhelmingly Supports Conviction

The Appellant, Meenabai Gaikwad, was convicted for the murder of her daughter-in-law, Savitra Gaikwad, under Section 302 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on April 17, 2013, the Appellant, in a state of fury following a quarrel over money demanded to release mortgaged gold ornaments, poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze

The deceased was admitted to Sassoon Hospital with 77% burn injuries and died on April 21, 2013

Before her death, her statement was recorded by API Subhash Jadhav (PW-5) in the presence of Dr. Aditya Kunte (PW-3), which served as a dying declaration

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment

The Appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds that the dying declaration was unreliable and that the death was an accidental stove explosion

1. Whether the dying declaration recorded by a police officer, rather than a Magistrate, and not in a question-answer format, can form the sole basis for conviction

2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal and caused by the Appellant, rather than accidental

The court primarily applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code regarding murder and the law governing dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act

It relied on Laxman v. State of Maharashtra and Purshottam Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), establishing that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence and the declarant was in a fit state of mind

It further referred to Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that the absence of a Magistrate or a specific question-answer format does not render a declaration inadmissible if its veracity is established

The court also noted the principle from Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra regarding the burden of proof in incidents occurring within the privacy of a home

The Court found the dying declaration highly credible because PW-3 (Doctor) certified the deceased was "conscious and well-oriented" both before and after the statement was recorded

The testimony of PW-5 (API) confirmed that no relatives were present during the recording, ruling out tutoring

This written declaration was further corroborated by oral dying declarations made to PW-2 (maternal uncle) and PW-6 (employer), both of whom testified that the deceased identified the Appellant as the assailant

The Court rejected the defense’s "stove explosion" theory, noting that the spot panchnama (Exh. 16) recorded a gas furnace but no remnants or evidence of a burst stove

Regarding procedural lapses, the Court held that the lack of a question-answer format and the recording by a police officer (rather than an SEM) did not diminish the statement's evidentiary value, as the procedural safeguards regarding the declarant's mental fitness were strictly followed

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, confirming the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment