When there are two contradictory dying declarations, then benefit of doubt should be given to accused.

Bombay High Court: Quashing the decision of the lower court, a division bench comprising of Hon’ble P. V. Hardas and P. N. Deshmukh, JJ held that when there are two contradictory dying declarations, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. In the present case the trial court had convicted the husband for murdering his wife by setting her ablaze for he suspected his wife of infidelity. The Court noted that the victim had given two dying declarations to police. In the first one, the deceased said she caught fire on account of sudden flaring of the stove and in the second one she implicated her husband, stating that he had set her ablaze.


The Bench ruled that it would not be open for the court to pick and choose one dying declaration for basing a conviction of the accused as accepting any one dying declaration would necessarily falsify the other and in the light of the contradictory dying declarations appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. The judges observed that the possibility that subsequent dying declaration was a result of tutoring of the victim by her relatives cannot be ruled out and in lights of this background they are allowing this appeal by giving benefit of doubt to the accused. [Sanjay Sakharam Ahire vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1061 of 2009, decided on 24th October, 2013]

Print Page