While setting aside the judgement of the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court has held that  subordinate courts should not rely on “contradictory and inconsistent dying declarations” of a victim at the time of convicting a person of murder charges.

 A bench of Justices S B Sinha and H S Bedi acquitted Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf, a resident of Dodwad, of murdering his wife by burning and said, “Consistency in the dying declaration is the relevant factor for placing full reliance thereupon.”

“Conviction can indisputably be based on a dying declaration. But, before it can be acted upon, the same must be held to have been rendered voluntarily and truthfully… In this case, the deceased herself had taken contradictory and inconsistent stand in different dying declarations. They, therefore, should not be accepted on their face value. Caution, in this behalf, is required to be applied,” said a lengthy judgement.

Burns
Hussainbi, the wife of Nadaf for six years, died of 100 per cent burn injuries on June 3, 2004 at KLE Hospital, Belgaum. Nadaf, a driver by profession, had admitted her first in the District Hospital on May 29, 2004 and later shifted her to the KLE Hospital.

In one of the dying declarations, Hussainbi, a mother of 3 children, had alleged that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law had poured kerosene and lighted a match stick after persistently demanding a gold chain as dowry from her parents.

During the five days in the hospital, Hussainbi had given four dying declarations — two to the medical officers, one to the executive magistrate and another to the police officer with different facts.

To the police officer, she said she sustained burn injuries as the stove burst while she was cooking food for the family, whereas before the executive magistrate she alleged that she was beaten by her husband after a quarrel. Both father-in-law and mother-in-law had poured kerosene on her and burnt her after she abused her husband. Before the medical officer she did not state the facts of the incident leading to her burn injuries clearly, the court said in the order.

While acquitting Nadaf, the court said, “Keeping in view the fact that in two of the dying declarations, the deceased attributed the acts primarily on her parents-in-law and they having been acquitted by the High Court, it is very difficult to hold that the appellant alone was responsible for causing the death.”

Counsel Sanjay Hegde appearing for prosecution submitted that the entire episode of abuse, quarrel and fire constituted one act. Nadaf could not be held responsible alone for the act, after the acquittal of his parents by the High Court, he said before the court during the argument.