Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Says Minor Differences in Multiple Dying Declarations Do Not Make Them Unreliable
Delhi High Court Upholds Woman’s Murder Conviction Based on Multiple Dying Declarations Naming Her as Assailant
Facts
The appeal was filed by Babita Dagar challenging the judgment of conviction dated 9 February 2004 and order on sentence dated 12 February 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi.
The case arose from FIR No. 186 of 2002 registered at Police Station Najafgarh under Sections 302/34 IPC.
The prosecution case was that on 4 April 2002, information was received that a woman had been set on fire at Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh. The victim, Bimla Devi, had already been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital.
The victim gave a statement to the Investigating Officer after being declared fit for statement by the doctor. She stated that Babita Dagar came to her house with two young boys. According to her, Babita wanted to marry her husband Surinder Singh. After some conversation, chilli powder was thrown into her eyes, a chunni was wrapped around her neck, and she was set on fire.
On the next day, the SDM also recorded the victim’s statement after medical certification of fitness. In that statement also, the victim named Babita and two boys as the persons who entered her house, threw chilli powder in her eyes, tried to strangulate her with a chunni and set her ablaze.
Bimla Devi later succumbed to her burn injuries on 6 April 2002. Section 307 IPC was then replaced by Section 302 IPC.
Babita Dagar was arrested on 7 April 2002. Her alleged associates Johnny and Vinnu could not be traced. The deceased’s husband Surinder Singh was also arrested, but the Trial Court acquitted him. Babita Dagar was convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of ₹5,000.
Her sentence was suspended by the Delhi High Court in 2006. The present appeal challenged the conviction.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of Babita Dagar under Sections 302/34 IPC could be sustained on the basis of multiple dying declarations.
- Whether the dying declarations made by deceased Bimla Devi were voluntary, truthful, consistent and reliable.
- Whether variations between the dying declarations created reasonable doubt.
- Whether absence of independent eyewitnesses or hostile witnesses weakened the prosecution case.
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused Surinder Singh affected the conviction of Babita Dagar.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the Trial Court convicted her on conjectures and surmises without properly appreciating the evidence.
She contended that the prosecution case was based on multiple dying declarations, which were contradictory and unreliable. These included an oral dying declaration to police personnel, the history recorded by the doctor, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, the statement recorded by the SDM, and oral declarations allegedly made to the deceased’s brothers.
The appellant argued that the first statement recorded by the Investigating Officer stated that Babita was known to the deceased for several years, was served tea, talked for some time and allegedly wanted to marry Surinder Singh. However, in the SDM’s statement, the deceased stated that Babita and two boys forcibly entered the house and that she did not know the reason for the incident.
It was argued that this omission of motive in the SDM’s statement destroyed the prosecution case.
The appellant further submitted that PW-2 and PW-13, the brothers of the deceased, were interested witnesses and had made improvements regarding the alleged relationship between Babita and Surinder Singh.
She also argued that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. PW-3 Shakuntala Devi, a neighbour, did not state that the deceased disclosed the identity of the assailants to her. PW-1 Alok also did not support the prosecution case.
It was further argued that no witness saw the appellant entering or leaving the deceased’s house. The alleged associates Johnny and Vinnu were never arrested. The recoveries made at the appellant’s instance were ordinary household articles and did not connect her with the offence.
The appellant also submitted that the MLC did not mention chilli powder in the eyes of the victim, which cast doubt on the prosecution version.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State supported the Trial Court’s judgment and argued that the conviction was based on reliable dying declarations.
The State submitted that the deceased consistently named Babita Dagar as the principal offender in all material statements.
It argued that immediately after the incident, the deceased told PW-6 HC Ishwar Singh that Babita and two boys came to her house, threw chilli powder into her eyes and set her on fire.
The State further relied on the MLC history recorded by PW-15 Dr. Reetesh Purwar, where the victim herself named Babita and described the assault.
The State submitted that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and the statement recorded by the SDM were substantially consistent on the core allegations: Babita came with two boys, chilli powder was thrown, a chunni was used to strangulate the victim, and the victim was set on fire.
According to the State, minor variations regarding tea, snacks, prior acquaintance or motive were natural and did not affect the core prosecution case.
The State also argued that the SDM’s dying declaration was highly reliable because it was recorded by an independent public officer after medical certification of fitness.
It was further submitted that medical evidence supported the prosecution case, as the post-mortem report established death due to ante-mortem thermal burn injuries.
Analysis of the Law
The Delhi High Court examined Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, which makes statements relating to the cause of death or circumstances of death relevant.
The Court held that a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it is voluntary, truthful and inspires confidence.
However, where multiple dying declarations exist, the Court must examine whether they are consistent on material particulars and whether they inspire confidence.
The Court clarified that multiple dying declarations need not be identical in every word or every detail. The correct test is whether they are consistent on the core facts concerning the identity of the accused, the manner of assault and the circumstances leading to death.
The Court also held that minor omissions or variations regarding collateral details do not destroy the reliability of dying declarations if the central prosecution version remains consistent.
On the medical aspect, the Court held that absence of medical notation about chilli powder in the eyes did not by itself render the dying declarations unreliable. Medical evidence is advisory in nature and need not always corroborate every detail of a truthful dying declaration.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the Supreme Court summarised the principles governing dying declarations. The Court reiterated that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence and is found to be true and voluntary.
The Court referred to Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar to hold that a dying declaration is not inadmissible merely because it is not recorded in question-answer form.
The Court relied on Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh to hold that evidence of relatives or interested witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground if otherwise credible.
The Court also relied on Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) on the approach to multiple dying declarations. The Court noted that the entire material and surrounding circumstances must be examined, and if the incriminating declaration reflects the truth, it can be acted upon.
The Court further referred to Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, where the Supreme Court held that even where multiple dying declarations contain some variations, the consistent common thread can be relied upon if supported by surrounding circumstances and medical evidence.
The Court also referred to Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra for the principle that medical opinion is not conclusive and is advisory in character.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that all the dying declarations consistently named Babita Dagar as the assailant.
The earliest statement was made to PW-6 HC Ishwar Singh while the victim was being taken to the hospital. The Court found PW-6 to be a neutral witness with no reason to falsely implicate the appellant.
The MLC history recorded by PW-15 Dr. Reetesh Purwar was also treated as significant because it was recorded during medical treatment and before family members could influence the victim.
The Court also accepted the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer because the victim had been declared fit for statement by the doctor before it was recorded.
The dying declaration recorded by the SDM was considered highly reliable because it was recorded by an Executive Magistrate after a fresh medical opinion confirming that the victim was fit to make a statement.
The Court held that the core allegations remained consistent throughout: Babita came with two boys, chilli powder was thrown into the victim’s eyes, a chunni was used to strangulate her, and she was then set on fire.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the dying declarations were contradictory. It held that variations regarding tea, snacks, duration of stay, or detailed motive were minor and did not affect the substance of the prosecution case.
The Court further held that the recovery of chilli powder and burnt clothes from the spot corroborated the dying declarations.
The medical evidence also supported the prosecution case. The victim had 45% burn injuries and a ligature mark on the left side of her neck. These injuries were consistent with the allegation that she was strangulated and set on fire.
The Court also noted that a letter written by the appellant expressing her desire to marry Surinder Singh was recovered. The appellant refused to give specimen handwriting and admitted authorship of the letter. This supported the prosecution’s motive theory.
The Court held that the acquittal of Surinder Singh did not weaken the case against Babita because the evidence against her stood on a different footing. She was specifically named in every material declaration.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal.
The Court held that the dying declarations made by Bimla Devi were voluntary, truthful, consistent and reliable.
It ruled that minor variations in different dying declarations did not affect the core prosecution case, as the appellant was consistently named and the manner of assault remained the same.
The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Babita Dagar, acting with her associates, threw chilli powder into the deceased’s eyes, attempted to strangulate her with a chunni and set her on fire, causing her death.
The conviction of Babita Dagar under Sections 302/34 IPC was affirmed.
The appellant was directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence. If she failed to surrender, appropriate steps were directed to be taken for her arrest.
Case Details
Case: Babita Dagar v. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: CRL.A. 181 of 2004
Judge: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Date: 07 July 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC affirmed; appellant directed to surrender within two weeks.
