Dying Declaration Cannot Alone Support Conviction Without Corroboration, Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced For Wife's Death

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard an appeal challenging the Madras High Court’s confirmation of a life sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC on an accused convicted for allegedly pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her on fire. The appeal contested both the reliability of the dying declaration recorded before a Judicial Magistrate and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence relied upon by the prosecution.

The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, setting aside the High Court order dated 28.02.2012 and directing that the appellant "shall be released from jail forthwith." In its summary reasoning the Bench emphasised that a dying declaration, though "an important piece of evidence," could not be treated as conclusive where inconsistencies and doubts surrounded it and no independent corroboration existed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The Bench also cited earlier authority noting that when multiple dying declarations were contradictory, courts must "carefully scrutinise the evidence to find out as to which of the dying declarations can be corroborated by other material evidence."

Background

The prosecution’s case was that on 12.09.2008 the appellant poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire; she succumbed to burn injuries on 02.10.2008 after protracted hospitalization. On the day of the incident the deceased initially told the attending doctor (PW 13) and a police constable (PW 9) that she had caught fire while cooking. Subsequently, on 15.09.2008 the police converted the accidental fire case to one under Section 307 IPC, and on 18.09.2008 a Judicial Magistrate (PW 12) recorded a statement used by the prosecution as a dying declaration in which the deceased attributed the act to her husband. The dying declaration included the deceased’s statement: "I had beaten my son Rubiston. My husband had asked me why you are beating the child. My husband had abused me with filthy language. I told him that I am going to die. He said that why do you die and he himself had poured kerosene and burnt me."

At trial the Magistrate-recorded dying declaration and testimony of the deceased’s parents (PW 1 & PW 2) formed the principal basis for conviction. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and the High Court affirmed. On appeal the Supreme Court examined the evidence afresh. The record showed earlier inconsistent statements by the deceased to the doctor and police on the day of the incident, hostile testimony from two eyewitnesses to the scene (PW 3 and PW 4), and a treating doctor’s evidence (PW 13) that there was no smell of kerosene on the deceased when she arrived at hospital. The prosecution relied on an Observation Mahazar purportedly noting recovery of an empty kerosene can and matchstick (PW 15), but the Court found the Mahazar’s veracity doubtful given delays in production and hostile witnesses to the seizure. The Bench found that the dying declaration stood isolated, materially inconsistent with contemporaneous statements and not satisfactorily corroborated by independent evidence. The appeal was allowed; the conviction and life sentence were set aside and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.540 OF 2013 Case Title: SURESH v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aravindh S., AOR For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G.; Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR; Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.; Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv.; Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.; Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.