The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a woman found guilty of murdering her daughter-in-law by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze following a dispute over money required to redeem mortgaged gold ornaments. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convict challenging her conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
According to the prosecution, the deceased was repeatedly harassed by her mother-in-law over money. On 17 April 2013, an argument erupted when the appellant again demanded funds to release her mortgaged jewellery. The prosecution alleged that, in a fit of rage, the appellant poured kerosene on Savitra and set her on fire. Savitra sustained extensive burn injuries and later succumbed to them.
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the conviction was unsustainable because the dying declaration had been recorded by a police officer rather than a Special Executive Magistrate and was not in a question-and-answer format. It was further contended that the incident was the result of an accidental stove explosion and that the appellant, an elderly woman who had spent over 13 years in custody, deserved leniency.
Rejecting these submissions, the Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed that the law does not require a dying declaration to be recorded by a Magistrate in every case. The Court reiterated that a truthful and voluntary dying declaration can by itself form the basis of conviction without independent corroboration.
The Bench found that the deceased had consistently implicated the appellant before multiple persons, including her maternal uncle, the doctor attending her, the police officer who recorded her statement, and the individual who transported her to the hospital. The Court noted that there was absolute consistency in the dying declarations and found no evidence of tutoring, prompting, or fabrication.
The Court also relied on medical evidence showing that the deceased was conscious, oriented, and mentally fit when her statement was recorded. It held that minor procedural objections raised by the defence did not undermine the reliability of the declaration.
Holding that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant’s guilt and that the trial court had rightly convicted her, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, along with the connected interim application.
