The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shabana Bi
- Neutral2018 INSC 758
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where there exist inconsistencies between two statements attributed to a dying declarant — here, a statement to a doctor that the accused and another person set the deceased on fire, and a formal dying declaration recorded by a magistrate naming only the accused — and both statements are reasonably capable of belief, the appellate court may adopt the view favouring the accused and grant the benefit of doubt, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal based on such a finding where the High Court has adopted a plausible interpretation of the evidence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SHABANA BI ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI,J.
1. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the conviction of the respondent-accused for the offence under section 302 IPC, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal.
2. The respondent-accused and the deceased Farida were neighbours. On the date of occurrence dated 19.04.2004 the respondent-accused is set to have poured kerosene on deceased Farida and set her ablaze.
The respondent was tried for the offence under Section
302 IPC.
3. Based on the dying declaration (Ex.P-25) of the deceased recorded by the Executive Magistrate, respondent under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment. In appeal, the High Court 2 pointed out that there is inconsistency between the first dying declaration recorded by Dr. Rakesh Chouksey (PW-9) to whom deceased stated that she has been burnt by her neighbour Sabana (respondent) and Noorafza who were mother and daughter, whereas before the Executive Magistrate, Tehsildar (PW-13) who has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 19.04.2004 to whom the deceased stated that she was set on fire by Sabana-respondent. The High Court has held that there are inconsistencies between the statement of deceased to Dr. Rakesh Chouksey (PW-9) and dying declaration (Ex.P-25) recorded by the Tehsildar (PW-13) and that benefit of doubt to be given to the respondent-accused. When there are two reasonable views and the High Court has adopted one such view which is a plausible one, we do not find any substantial ground warranting interference with the order of the acquittal.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
….......................J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
…......................J.
[VINEET SARAN]
NEW DELHI
29th AUGUST, 2018
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free