2026 Supreme(Bom) 835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M. S. KARNIK, S. M. MODAK, JJ.
Prasad Sudhakar Kulkarni - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.808 of 2017 Alongwith Interim Application No. 1839 of 2024 Alongwith Interim Application No. 4457 of 2025 Alongwith Interim Application No. 4516 of 2024
Decided On : 05-05-2026

Multiple inconsistent dying declarations require independent scrutiny and corroboration; prosecution must prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt despite defense lacunae; investigative lapses and witness improvements entitle acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Dying Declarations - Multiple inconsistent dying declarations - First set (two declarations on 13th May) suggesting accidental burns due to clothing catching fire from burning diya; second set (two on 14th May, post complaint by victim's father) implicating appellant-husband in pouring kerosene and setting fire - Trial Court relied on second set, convicted for murder imposing life imprisonment - Held, principles for appreciating dying declarations require scrutiny of voluntariness, fitness, consistency, and corroboration especially with inconsistencies; prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt - Investigative lapses (concealment of first declaration, delayed witness statements, unexamined key persons, dubious seizure of kerosene container), witness improvements/omissions, lack of medical papers corroborating 100% burns only from kerosene, disowned portions in statements create doubt - Accidental declarations recorded when victim's relatives absent; homicidal ones post their arrival - No reliable corroboration for homicidal version despite kerosene traces on gown pieces - Prosecution case not proved; appeal allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 22-25, 85-95)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden on accused to explain facts in special knowledge not as heavy as prosecution's; weaknesses in defence (e.g., variance in clothing - gown vs. odhani) do not relieve prosecution burden. (Paras 77-83)

(C) Multiple Dying Declarations - Each considered independently; inconsistencies necessitate corroborative circumstances (attendant factors, medical evidence, tutoring possibility); no presumption favouring later declarations. (Paras 22(h)-(l))

Facts of the case:
Appellant-husband convicted for wife's murder by burns; she died 4 months post-marriage with 100% burns, he also injured. Two early dying declarations claimed accidental fire from diya; later two blamed him after victim's father complained suspecting initial investigation. Witnesses noted kerosene smell, appellant's drunkenness but with delays/improvements. Trial Court found homicidal.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution failed to prove homicidal death; benefit of doubt to appellant; conviction and life sentence set aside; appellant released forthwith.

Issues: (a) Proof of homicidal death; (b) Reliability of accidental vs. homicidal dying declarations; (c) Correct appreciation of evidence by trial Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Multiple inconsistent dying declarations create serious doubt requiring independent scrutiny and corroboration; investigative defects, witness inconsistencies, unproduced medical/treatment records, and lack of explanation for seizures undermine homicidal version; cases decided on evidence, not suspicion.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenges conviction via conflicting dying declarations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. prosecution case and trial witnesses summarized. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. doubts on kerosene seizure and investigation bonafides. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. principles for evaluating multiple dying declarations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. accidental declarations assessed for reliability. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. homicidal declarations reveal material inconsistencies. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
7. witness corroboration undermined by delays, improvements. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71)
8. dowry motive rejected as witness improvements. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
9. accused explanation under section 106 adequate. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84)
10. prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97)

JUDGMENT :

(PER : S. M. MODAK, J.)

1. The Appellant is convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik on 22^nd August 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in a trial conducted in Sessions Case No.240/2011. The sentence is life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and there is imprisonment in default to pay fine for period of six months. The amount of fine is to be paid to the father of the victim-Kirti. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged on behalf of the Appellant.

2. The contention of the Appellant is there are two sets of dying declarations (Exh. 120 and Exh. 93). One set suggest that Kirti succumbed to accidental burn injuries whereas another set suggest that it was a homicidal death due to pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire by her own husband i.e. the present Appellant. The Appellant contend that the trial Court has not considered both sets of dying declarations as per the set norms. According to him, he has offered a proper explanation as to how deceased-Kirti succumbed to burn injures. Whereas according to prosecution the second set of dying declaration clearly suggest that it is the Appellant who is responsible for the death due to burning and in fact it is the case of the homicidal death i.e. to say ‘Kirti’ and Appellant both were staying in the same house and when the deceased- Kirti was burnt, the Appellant was very much present there and the explanation which is offered by him is not a plausible explanation. Father of the deceased/respondent No.2 during pendency of trial has also raised grievance about bonafides of the investigation. Even there was criminal Writ Petition No. 3235 of 2011 filed by him in this Court. However, the Commissioner of Police, Nashik has transferred the investigation to Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Nashik. So we are required to decide as to whether the lacunae pointed in the investigation on behalf of the respondent No.2 are natural or whether they were deliberate.

3. On this background, when we have read the trial Court judgment, we find the trial Court has given importance to second set of dying declaration (Exh. 93). Trial Court found certain defects in investigation and that is how, trial Court has convicted the Appellant.While dealing with the Appeal, we are supposed to ascertain whether the defects in the investigation are really the defects to assist the Appellant or they are the defects occurred in a natural course unintentionally. We also have to find out what are the circumstances corroborating accidental dying declaration and what are the circumstances corroborating dying declaration implicating the Appellant and then this Court has to assess which set of dying declarations is correct.

4. On this background, we have heard learned Advocate Ms. Ganediwala for the Appellant, learned APP Shri Gavand for the Respondent No. 1-State and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document