1. Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s conviction of Appellant No. 1 for the murder of her sister-in-law under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to critical discrepancies in the dying declarations and lack of corroborative evidence. The appellant was acquitted, and the charges against her were dismissed.
2. Facts of the Case
- Incident: The deceased, a 23-year-old woman, sustained 60% burns on 13th February 1995 in her jhuggi in a densely populated area. She was four months pregnant at the time.
- Allegations: The deceased claimed that her sister-in-law (Appellant No. 1) and mother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze during a dispute when her husband was not at home.
- Initial Response: Witnesses, including the deceased’s uncle, took her to the hospital. Multiple dying declarations were recorded by the police and a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM).
- Prosecution’s Evidence: The dying declarations consistently named the appellants as the assailants, alleging they used kerosene to ignite the fire.
3. Issues
- Were the deceased’s dying declarations reliable and consistent enough to form the sole basis for conviction?
- Did the prosecution provide sufficient corroborative evidence, such as forensic analysis or independent witness testimony, to substantiate the allegations?
4. Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments
- Inconsistencies in Evidence: The defense argued that there were serious discrepancies in the dying declarations, such as mismatched timelines and missing details about the crime.
- Forensic Lapses: Key evidence, such as the stove and clothing, was not sent for forensic analysis to confirm the presence of kerosene. Medical reports also did not mention any kerosene traces.
- Witness Testimonies: Several witnesses turned hostile or failed to confirm the appellant’s presence at the crime scene.
- Mitigating Factors: The appellant had already served over five years of imprisonment and was in her late 60s at the time of the appeal.
5. Respondent’s (Prosecution’s) Arguments
- Consistency in Dying Declarations: The prosecution highlighted that the deceased consistently named the appellants in her dying declarations and other oral statements to her family.
- Weight of Dying Declarations: It argued that dying declarations are admissible and reliable under Indian law even in the absence of corroboration.
- Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution pointed to the deceased’s strained relationship with her in-laws and statements from family members alleging harassment and cruelty as supporting evidence.
6. Analysis of the Law
The court analyzed the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It reiterated key principles from precedents:
- Requirements for Dying Declarations:
- Must be voluntary, truthful, and made in a fit state of mind.
- Should inspire the court’s confidence in its accuracy.
- Importance of Corroboration:
- Dying declarations can form the sole basis of conviction if fully reliable.
- Where discrepancies or doubts exist, corroborative evidence is necessary to support the declaration.
- Relevant Precedents:
- Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): Highlighted the need for corroboration when dying declarations are inconsistent.
- P. Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006): Suspicion over a dying declaration warrants corroboration through independent evidence.
- Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002): Courts must ensure that the declaration is credible and free from external influence.
7. Precedent Analysis
The court referred to the above precedents and emphasized the following points:
- Consistency is Key: Discrepancies in multiple dying declarations reduce their reliability.
- Corroboration is Critical: Lack of supporting evidence, such as forensic analysis or eyewitness accounts, weakens the prosecution’s case.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must rigorously evaluate the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration to rule out fabrication or exaggeration.
8. Court’s Reasoning
- Inconsistencies in Dying Declarations:
- In one declaration, the deceased mentioned who lit the matchstick; in another, this detail was omitted.
- The claim that the door was bolted from inside was not consistently stated.
- Forensic Gaps:
- Medical reports did not detect kerosene traces on the deceased’s body or clothing.
- Key evidence, including the stove and burnt clothing, was not sent for forensic examination.
- Witness Credibility:
- Key witnesses turned hostile or failed to confirm the appellant’s presence at the crime scene.
- The dense population of the area raised doubts about the lack of independent witnesses.
- Improbability of the Events:
- The alleged sequence of events was implausible in a small, confined space without anyone else catching fire.
- Bias in Statements:
- The deceased’s brother alleged prior ill-treatment, suggesting potential bias or exaggeration in the dying declarations.
9. Conclusion
The court ruled that the dying declarations alone could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to corroborate the declarations with forensic or independent evidence. The court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the principle that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
10. Implications
- Reinforces Standards for Convictions: The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborating dying declarations in cases with inconsistencies or doubts.
- Highlights Investigative Lapses: The case underscores the need for thorough forensic investigations and collection of corroborative evidence.
- Sets a Precedent for Similar Cases: This ruling may influence future cases where dying declarations form the primary evidence, particularly in the absence of corroboration.
