Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Supreme Court acquitted a husband who was convicted for the alleged murder of his wife after finding inconsistencies in the dying declarations of the deceased.
The Supreme Court held that it not safe to convict a person solely on the basis of an uncorroborated dying declaration when it is suspicious. The Court acquitted a husband (Appellant), who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the alleged murder of his wife. The Court found inconsistencies in the dying declarations of the deceased and held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the Appellant. A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that, “As discussed above, in cases where the dying declaration is suspicious, it is not safe to convict an accused in the absence of corroborative evidence. In a case like the present one, where the deceased has been changing her stance and has completely turned around her statements, such a dying declaration cannot become the sole basis for the conviction in the absence of any other corroborative evidence.”
AOR Aravindh S. appeared for the Appellant, while Senior AAG V. Krishnamurthy represented the Respondent. Brief Facts The Appellant’s wife suffered burn injuries at their residence and later succumbed to them. Initially, the police recorded her statement as an accidental fire. However, she later gave another statement alleging that the Appellant had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The Prosecution relied on multiple dying declarations. The first statement, recorded by a Head Constable indicated an accidental fire while cooking. A second statement, recorded by a Sub-Inspector accused the Appellant of setting her on fire. A third statement, recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, was treated as the final dying declaration by the Courts.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellant based on the final dying declaration and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Madras High Court upheld the conviction. Court’s Reasoning The Supreme Court noted that the case involved contradictory dying declarations. Referring to its decision in Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022), the Court emphasised that “In cases involving multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, the question that arises for consideration is as to which of the said dying declarations ought to be believed by the court and what would be the guiding factors for arriving at a just and lawful conclusion. The problem becomes all the more knotty when the dying declarations made by the deceased are found to be contradictory. Faced with such a situation, the court would be expected to carefully scrutinise the evidence to find out as to which of the dying declarations can be corroborated by other material evidence produced by the prosecution.”
The Bench found contradictions between the deceased’s statements. The first two statements suggested an accident, while the one given to the Judicial Magistrate accused the Appellant. “Now, the variances in deceased’s statements cast serious doubts on the veracity of her subsequent statement of 18.09.2008 made before the Judicial Magistrate (PW12) where the deceased had blamed the appellant for the incident. The deceased tried to explain her conduct by stating that she made false statements on the day of the incident as she could not tell the truth in the presence of her husband. It is very difficult to believe this version of the deceased because no other evidence corroborates the deceased’s statement that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and then set her on fire,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “We are not in a position to give any definitive view on this aspect but considering the other evidence on record, the possibility of what the appellant is suggesting, cannot be ruled out. Thus, in our considered opinion, inspite of a dying declaration here, for the reasons stated above, total reliance on it would be misplaced. Consequently, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the Appellant by setting aside the Order of the High Court. Cause Title: Suresh v. State (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 318)
