The case is about a man who allegedly set his mother on fire because he believed she would give all her earnings to his three sisters and exclude him. According to the prosecution, the incident happened around 10 a.m. while the mother was sitting on a chair, but no one witnessed it. It wasn't until around 4:30 p.m. that the deceased woman’s granddaughter came to the house and found out what had happened. The police received an anonymous tip around the same time, stating that the woman's son was responsible for the incident. Based on that tip, a case was registered, and the police rushed to the house. They found the woman severely burnt and took her to Kottarakkara hospital.
There, the doctor gave her initial treatment and recorded her injuries. He also noted that the woman told him her son caused the burns. The prosecution also claims that the woman gave a dying declaration, stating clearly that her son set her on fire because he suspected she wouldn’t give him a share of her earnings. Although a magistrate was said to be present at the time of the declaration, he did not confirm whether the woman was mentally fit to give the statement, nor did he attest to it formally.
You can also read the blog of Rarest of the Rare case: Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Later, the police were advised to take the woman to the Medical College Hospital in Trivandrum, but she died on the way at around 7 p.m. on July 28, 1996. The court relied heavily on her dying declaration and convicted the accused based on the prosecution’s version of events.
Issue before the Court
The main issue in this case was whether the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of his mother, Saramma.
Arguments in the case
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 28th July 1996 at around 10 a.m. in their house in Kottarakkara village, where the appellant was accused of pouring kerosene on his mother and setting her on fire.
Analysis of the Court
The Court closely examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and found that it was not strong enough to support a conviction. There was a clear lack of reliable and convincing proof linking the appellant to the crime. The Court also stated that it would be unsafe to convict someone based only on the weak and doubtful evidence that was given. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal, overturned the lower courts’ conviction, and ordered that the appellant be released immediately provided he was not required in any other case.
