Court Upholds Acquittal Where Dying Declaration Is Found Unreliable; State's Appeal Dismissed

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's acquittal of an accused convicted for offences including murder and house-trespass. The appeal assailed the High Court's judgment dated 22 June 2010 which had reversed the trial Court's conviction and sentence.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's acquittal, holding that the principal evidence relied upon by the prosecution — the dehati nalishi and the dying declaration — suffered from grave doubts and was unworthy of credence. The Court emphasised that the circumstances surrounding the recording of the oral dying declaration, the medical evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimony rendered the declaration unreliable. The Court noted that the doctor who was present admitted that "neither the pulse nor the blood pressure of the victim were recordable" and the Naib Tehsildar recorded that the victim's voice was "very feeble and not clear at all." The Court further observed that "the dying declaration was not free from doubt and hence, it would be hazardous to place reliance on the same for convicting the accused-respondent." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We may note that the present appeal is one against acquittal. Law is well-settled by a plethora of judgments of this Court that in an appeal against acquittal unless the finding of acquittal is perverse on the face of the record and the only possible view based on the evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused only in such an event, should the appellate Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal. Where two views are possible i.e., one consistent with the acquittal and the other holding the accused guilty, the appellate Court should refuse to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka; H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Anr." The Bench concluded that the appeal did not disclose any error warranting interference and dismissed the appeal.

Background The prosecution case was that the accused entered a house carrying a container of kerosene, poured it on the body of the victim and set her on fire on 10 March 2003; the victim later died of burn injuries. A dehati nalishi was lodged by Poona Bai and an oral dying declaration was recorded by the Naib Tehsildar at the district hospital; the FIR added Section 302 IPC after the victim succumbed. The trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively, but acquitted him under the SC/ST Act provision. On appeal, the High Court disagreed with the trial Court's acceptance of key eyewitness testimony and found the dying declaration and nalishi to be unreliable, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused.

On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the State challenged the High Court's acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the entire record, including testimony of the Naib Tehsildar and Dr. A.K. Gupta who was present during the recording; both admitted difficulty in comprehending the victim’s feeble speech and dialect, and the doctor stated he had endorsed the dying declaration after it had been recorded. The High Court had also noted timing inconsistencies — admission at 7:25 pm, nalishi recorded thereafter, and death at about 8:30 pm — and possible suppression of an earlier police report. The High Court found identification doubtful because multiple persons bore the name Ramveer. Considering these contradictions and "inherent improbabilities," the Supreme Court agreed that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the acquittal did not call for interference. The appeal was dismissed; pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 952 (Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2014) Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramveer Singh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Padmesh Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent(s): (Not indicated in the judgment)