Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of a woman who had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC for allegedly setting her daughter-in-law ablaze. The Court held that the conviction was based on inconsistent dying declarations, recorded under suspicious circumstances, and lacking corroboration.
The Bench observed:
“When dying declarations are inconsistent and recorded under circumstances that raise doubts of tutoring, conviction cannot rest solely upon them.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the accused was acquitted.
Facts
The case arose from the death of a newly married woman in June 2008 at her matrimonial home in Buldhana district. Married only three months earlier, she had confided in her mother about harassment from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, and about her husband demanding ₹30,000 from her parental family.
On 11 June 2008, she sustained severe burn injuries at her matrimonial house and was admitted to Akola Government Hospital. Her dying declarations were recorded first by a police officer and then by a Naib Tahsildar in the presence of a doctor. She succumbed to her injuries on 15 June 2008.
The prosecution alleged that her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her and her husband ignited her, aided by other family members. The trial court convicted the mother-in-law under Section 302 IPC but acquitted the other co-accused, including the husband.
The defence claimed that the burns were accidental, caused by the fall of a kerosene can when she was lighting a stove. The appeal before the High Court challenged the conviction.
Issues
- Whether the two dying declarations were reliable, voluntary, and consistent to form the sole basis of conviction.
- Whether the deceased was mentally and physically fit to make the dying declarations.
- Whether tutoring and the presence of relatives at the hospital vitiated the reliability of the statements.
- Whether corroboration was required when dying declarations were inconsistent.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction rested entirely on two inconsistent dying declarations. In the first, the deceased stated that her mother-in-law poured kerosene while her husband ignited her; in the second, she said only her mother-in-law both poured kerosene and lit the fire. Such contradictions were material and undermined reliability.
It was further argued that the dying declarations bore thumb impressions of the deceased, despite her having sustained 100% burns, raising doubts about genuineness. The defence also highlighted that the mother of the deceased did not support the prosecution and confirmed an oral statement by the deceased suggesting accidental burns.
Relying on Samadhan Dhudhaka Koli v. State of Maharashtra (2009), Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022), and Datta Tukaram Malwad v. State of Maharashtra (2014), the counsel submitted that inconsistent dying declarations require corroboration and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution maintained that both dying declarations consistently implicated the mother-in-law as having set the deceased on fire. It argued that certification by the doctor about the victim’s fitness was not essential in every case, and that the declarant’s mental state was sufficiently established by the officers recording the statements.
The prosecution also argued that the presence of thumb impressions on the declarations was not suspicious, as even in 100% burns, parts of the skin, such as the thumb, may remain intact. It relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh (2013) to support this argument.
It was urged that since the incident occurred within three months of marriage, with clear allegations of cruelty, the Court should uphold the trial court’s conviction.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows statements made by a deceased about the cause of their death to be admissible. It reiterated that while a conviction can rest solely on a dying declaration, such a declaration must be consistent, voluntary, reliable, and free from suspicion.
The Court stressed that when multiple dying declarations exist, each must be assessed independently. Where contradictions arise, corroboration is required. Presence of relatives during recording, absence of endorsement about the deceased accepting the recorded statement, and possibility of tutoring raise serious doubts.
The Court also highlighted that corroboration is not a rule of law but of prudence, especially when declarations are inconsistent.
Precedent Analysis
- Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002): Certification by a doctor is a rule of caution, not mandatory if the declarant is proved to be conscious and fit.
- Krishan v. State of Haryana (2013): Reliable dying declarations, if voluntary, can be sole basis of conviction.
- Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022): Multiple inconsistent dying declarations require corroboration; infirm declarations cannot alone sustain conviction.
- Abhishekh Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): Principles for assessing multiple dying declarations laid down—consistency, voluntariness, fitness, and absence of tutoring are key.
- State of M.P. v. Dal Singh (2013): Thumb impressions even with burn injuries may be valid if skin is intact.
The Court distinguished cases relied on by prosecution by noting the inconsistencies in the present case and possibility of tutoring.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the dying declarations in this case were not reliable due to:
- Material contradictions in attributing specific roles.
- Suspicion of tutoring since relatives were present prior to recording.
- Absence of corroboration from independent witnesses.
- Doubts about thumb impressions and lack of clarity on mental condition.
The Court emphasised that in criminal trials, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Since the prosecution relied solely on infirm dying declarations without corroboration, conviction could not be sustained.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC, acquitted the accused, and discharged her bail bonds.
Implications
This judgment reinforces caution in relying solely on dying declarations, particularly when inconsistent or suspicious circumstances exist. It underscores that courts must ensure voluntariness, consistency, and reliability before convicting on such evidence.
The ruling also highlights the importance of corroboration when multiple dying declarations exist, providing clarity for future cases involving dowry deaths and matrimonial cruelty.
FAQs
Q1. Can inconsistent dying declarations form the sole basis of conviction?
No. When dying declarations are inconsistent, corroboration is necessary. Without corroboration, conviction cannot rest solely on them.
Q2. Is doctor’s certification mandatory for dying declarations?
Not mandatory. Certification is a rule of caution, but the recorder must be satisfied of the declarant’s mental fitness.
Q3. Can thumb impressions on dying declarations be valid in cases of 100% burns?
Yes, validity depends on whether the thumb skin was intact. Courts assess this on case-specific facts.
