1

  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

deceased  recorded  by  the  Executive  Magistrate,

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