SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55496

KERALA HIGH COURT
A.M. Shaffique, J
Misiriya @ Misiriya Rahman v. State of Kerala
Appeal No. 40 of 2023 | SC No. 945/2012



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Adv. Meera Suresh
For the Respondent: Adv. Neema

The court ruled that inconsistencies in dying declarations and inadequate evidence undermine a murder conviction, emphasizing the need for reliable corroboration.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307 - Conviction and sentence - The accused was convicted for murdering her husband's second wife by setting her ablaze during the night - The appeal was based on the assertion that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly contesting the validity of dying declarations provided by the deceased - The court noted inconsistencies between the dying declarations and the eyewitnesses' testimonies, concluding that the prosecution's evidence was inadequate to sustain the conviction. (Paras 31 and 32)

(B) Dying Declarations - Legal standards - Dying declarations may serve as evidence but must be corroborated by reliable testimonies. The court emphasized caution in their acceptance when inconsistencies arise, and valid doubts cloud the evidence. (Paras 22, 24, 26, and 30)

Facts of the case:
The accused poured petrol and set ablaze her husband's second wife, leading to severe burn injuries. Despite testimony from witnesses and dying declarations, doubts about their authenticity and prosecution's credibility arose. (Paras 1-20)

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the trial court's conviction due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime or proof of the cause of death as a homicide. No substantial proof demonstrated the presence of petrol, nor painted a reliable picture to ascertain guilt. (Paras 31 and 32)

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly the reliability of the dying declarations. (Paras 21 and 31)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found significant inconsistencies in the dying declarations and noted a lack of corroborative evidence to support the prosecution's claims, thereby justifying the reversal of conviction. (Paras 26 and 30)

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the murder charge and initial proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of eyewitness testimony and its impact. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. medical examination and its findings in the case. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. arguments made by the appellant and prosecutor regarding evidence. (Para 18 , 19)
5. court's evaluation of dying declarations and their inconsistencies. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. analysis of evidence and doubts surrounding prosecution's case. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. (Para 31 , 32)

1. This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC No.945/2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court - 1, Kasaragod challenging her conviction and sentence imposed under S.302 and S.307 IPC .

2. Prosecution case

Due to enmity towards PW1 and his second wife Nafeesath Misiriya, the accused, who is the first wife of PW1, on 7/8/2011 at about 6 a.m., poured petrol upon them while they were sleeping inside their house, through a window and set them ablaze. Both PW1 and Nafeesath Misiriya sustained severe burn injuries and were taken to a hospital in Mangalore. While undergoing treatment, Nafeesath Misiriya succumbed to her injuries at about 8.50 p.m on 15/8/2011. Hence, the prosecution alleges that the accused has committed the offences punishable under S.449, S.326, S.307 and S.302 IPC .

3. Proceedings before the trial court.

In order to prove the afore charge, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW34 and marked Exhibits P1 to P36 documents and MO1 to MO9. On questioning under S.313 CrPC, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against her in evidence and contended that she is innocent. From the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty and convicted her under S.302 & S.307 IPC , but acquitted her of the charges under S.449 and S.326 of . The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- under S.302 . In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under S.307 and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

4. A conspectus of the evidence let in by the prosecution

PW1 is a victim in the attack and he is also the husband of the deceased Nafeesath Misiriya. He deposed that Nafeesath Misiriya is his second wife and she died on 15/8/2011 at Unity Hospital in Mangalapuram. On 7/8/2011 at about 6 am while he and Nafeesath Misiriya were lying in a cot near an open window in their bedroom, some liquid fell upon them and there was the smell of petrol. When he tried to get up, he saw his wife's body engulfed in fire. He doused the fire by rolling his wife on the floor. Thereafter, when he went outside, he saw the accused opening the gate and running away. Even though he followed her, could not succeed in catching her. He also suffered burn injuries on his leg, chest and hand in the incident. Later he went to the house of CW9 and called him and people came there. Outside the window, he found MO1 plastic mug with the smell of petrol and MO2 a container used for storing paint. Thereafter, he along with his wife were taken to Unity Hospital, Mangalapuram and were admitted there. He also stated that he married the accused in 1996 and thereafter their relationship got strained. Subsequently, he signed in Ext.P2 mahazar when the police seized Ext.P1 marriage certificate of his and the deceased, and also in Ext.P3 scene mahazar. In his cross examination, he stated that his homestead has a compound wall of two and half metres height on all its sides and at the relevant time, the window panes on the top were open. He also stated that he had covered his wife with a blanket and had rolled her on the floor to douse the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top