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
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2011
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 Signature Not Verified deceased recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.09.04 16:30:04 IST Reason: Tehsildar (PW-13), the trial Court convicted the
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