Giving the benefit of doubt, the Bombay High Court has set aside the life imprisonment imposed on a man for setting his young wife on fire resulting in her death.
Samir Awati had been convicted by the trial court for murder of his wife but the High Court acquitted him on submissions made by lawyer Arfan Sait that there was evidence to show that his client had attempted to put out the flames when his wife caught fire and even admitted her to hospital.
A bench of Justices P V Hardas and Reveti Mohite-Dhere ruled that the possibility that the deceased, Salama, had committed suicide could not be ruled out.
The Judges held that the two dying declarations of the victim were recorded in great details and considering her condition after she was admitted to hospital it would be difficult to accept the same.
The court said, "it is pertinent to note that despite the fact that the appellant had extinguished the fire and admitted Salama to hospital, the said fact is conspicuous by its absence in both dying declarations, allegedly given by Salama."
"We have scrutinised both the dying declarations minutely and find that both the dying declarations are not free from infirmities and it would be extremely hazardous to place any reliance on both these dying declarations as they do not inspire confidence and therefore would have to be excluded from consideration," said the Judges in a recent ruling.
The Judges said the evidence given by victim's neighbour Mohan Gagare about disclosure made by Salama that the Appellant had set her on fire does not inspire confidence in the light of the evidence that has come on record.
The court further held that the maternal grand father of Salama on going to the spot after learning that she had sustained burn injuries; leaving her on the road even after seeing her and then going to the Masjid to offer prayers and then to his house to inform the relatives, is far from trustworthy or credible and therefore cannot be relied upon.
The High Court also agreed with the trial court's observation that the conduct of maternal grandfather of the victim was not the natural conduct of a grand father and cannot be believed.
