High Court Acquittal Is Set Aside as Supreme Court Relies on Dying Declaration to Restore Conviction

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan heard the appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the High Court of Himachal Pradesh’s acquittal of a husband accused of setting his wife on fire. The matter raised questions on the reliability of a dying declaration and the scope for appellate interference with an order of acquittal.

The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment of acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for offence under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the dying declaration recorded on 08.12.2009 by the Tehsildar at the hospital was “voluntary, truthful and reliable” and could form the basis for conviction. The Court noted that appellate interference with an order of acquittal was permissible where the lower court’s reasoning was “erroneous” or the appreciation of evidence was perverse, and it found such error in the High Court’s approach. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Upon an overall appraisal of the evidence, we are satisfied that the dying declaration of the deceased, Saro Devi, is voluntary, truthful and reliable. It was recorded by a competent authority at a time when the deceased was conscious, oriented and capable of making a statement. The minor discrepancies highlighted by the High Court do not create any dent in the credibility of the dying declaration.” The bench further remarked that doubts about timing or the mechanics of recording could not outweigh consistent testimony that established the declaration’s authenticity.

Background The prosecution alleged that on 07.12.2009 the respondent poured kerosene on his wife, Saro Devi, and set her on fire at their residence in Village Rampur, Chamba. Neighbours and the respondent attempted rescue; the deceased suffered approximately 70% burns and later died on 15.01.2010. The brother of the deceased filed information leading to FIR No. 292/2009 under Section 302 IPC. The Tehsildar (PW‑1) recorded a statement of the deceased on 08.12.2009 in the hospital after obtaining medical opinion of fitness; that statement, treated as a dying declaration (Ext. PW‑1/B), named the husband as the assailant and stated he had called her a “Kanjri.”

At trial the Sessions Court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine; the High Court allowed the respondent’s appeal in 2014 and acquitted him by extending the benefit of doubt, primarily on perceived discrepancies about the time and manner of recording the dying declaration and on reliance placed upon hostile and defence witnesses who suggested self‑immolation.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the State urged that the Tehsildar, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW‑10) and the Investigating Officer (PW‑12) consistently supported that the dying declaration was recorded after medical certification and that there was no evidence of tutoring or manipulation. The defence and amicus for the respondent contended that presence of police at recording, variances in testimony about timing, hostile witnesses and defence witnesses pointing to self‑immolation created reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court reviewed settled principles on dying declarations and appellate interference with acquittals, including authorities that a dying declaration, if voluntary and reliable, may alone sustain conviction. The Court accepted corroborative aspects — medical opinion of fitness, PW‑1’s certificate, thumb impression on the statement and supporting testimony — and rejected the High Court’s reliance on minor inconsistencies and on hostile or partisan witnesses. The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s acquittal was set aside, and the trial Court’s conviction and sentence were restored. The Court directed the respondent to surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence and ordered that the trial Court take appropriate steps if he failed to surrender.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2018 (Reportable: 2026 INSC 57) Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate for the State of Himachal Pradesh For the Respondent(s): Mr. Krishna Pal Singh, Amicus Curiae (appointed)