High Court Acquits Two Accused, Holds Dying Declaration Alone Was Insufficient to Sustain Conviction

A bench of Justices G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and R. Poornima of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court heard appeals against conviction in Sessions Case No.19 of 2017 and a revision seeking enhancement of sentence. The matters concerned whether convictions under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC could rest primarily on a dying declaration (Ex.P17) and related statements recorded after a woman sustained fatal burn injuries on 03.05.2016.

The Court allowed Criminal Appeals Nos.449 and 576 of 2022 and set aside the trial court's judgment of 12.04.2022, acquitting the appellants of all charges. The Court held that the prosecution had not satisfactorily corroborated the contents of the dying declaration and that the record contained material discrepancies and suspicious circumstances which rendered Ex.P17 unsafe to be the sole basis for conviction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Thus, it is clear that it is unsafe to record a conviction solely on the basis of a dying declaration. In cases where suspicion or doubt arises regarding the correctness of the dying declaration, it is necessary to look for other corroborative evidence, treating the dying declaration only as a piece of evidence." The judgment further stated that "the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellants" and that the guilt of the appellants "has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt."

Background

The prosecution case was that the deceased, who had separated from her husband and filed for divorce and interim maintenance, was set on fire outside her home after returning from a family court hearing on 03.05.2016. The prosecution alleged that the first accused (her husband) conspired with the second and a third accused; two men on a motorcycle threw chilli powder and poured petrol on the deceased, who sustained 90–95% burns and later died. An FIR (Crime No.518 of 2016) and a dying declaration (Ex.P17) recorded by a Judicial Magistrate were central to the prosecution's case. The trial court convicted Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fines.

On appeal, defence counsel challenged the authenticity and reliability of Ex.P17 and the complaint Ex.P1, pointed to material contradictions (notably differing impressions obtained — left thumb in Ex.P1 versus left toe in Ex.P17), and questioned the competence and role of the doctor (P.W.29) who certified the deceased to be in a "fixed/fit state of mind." The defence also highlighted hostile witnesses, lack of direct eyewitness identification, deficiencies in the recording officer's satisfaction regarding fitness to give a statement, and the absence of corroborative evidence as required where doubts about a dying declaration exist.

The State relied on motive, testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 about conspiracy and threats, testimony that the deceased had asserted the husband poured petrol on her, and the timing and procedure of recording statements at the hospital. The High Court examined the sequence and credibility of Ex.P1, Ex.P17 and other record material, observed grave inconsistencies (including the absence of timely certification by the duty doctor, contradictions in timing, and P.W.29's doubtful status), and applied settled principles that a dying declaration, while admissible, must be reliable and preferably corroborated when suspicion arises. The Court found that the prosecution failed to corroborate the dying declaration with independent, credible material and therefore concluded that the convictions could not be sustained. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, convictions and sentences were set aside, bail bonds (if any) were cancelled, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded; the accused were to be released if not required in other cases. The revision petition for enhancement (Crl.R.C(MD)No.941 of 2022) was dismissed for default after the sole petitioner died and no one stepped into his shoes.

Case No.: Crl.A(MD)Nos.449 & 576 of 2022; Crl.R.C(MD)No.941 of 2022
Case Title: Mohandass v. State by The Inspector of Police, C.3, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai; Shanmugam v. State by The Inspector of Police, C.3, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai; M. Jeganathan v. Mohandass & Shanmugam & State
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel (for Mohandass) for Mr. V. Purushothaman; Mr. N. Mohideen Basha (for Shanmugam); Mr. K. Prabhu (for petitioner in revision)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor