The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has upheld the murder convictions of a husband and his parents for the death of a woman who suffered fatal burn injuries in 2017, ruling that a dying declaration maintains significant evidentiary weight even when prosecution witnesses turn hostile during trial. In a significant modification to the trial court’s judgment, the bench consisting of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay concurrently acquitted two other accused individuals, Vipin and Madan, finding that the prosecution had failed to establish their identities beyond a reasonable doubt.

The criminal appeals challenged a November 2018 order from the 8th Additional District Judge in Budaun, which had sentenced all five accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident, which occurred in the village of Asrasi on January 4, 2017, involved the death of the victim, Priti, who had been married to the primary accused, Anuj Kumar, for approximately three years. According to the state’s case, the victim was subjected to kerosene-induced burns before being taken to a hospital, where she provided a dying declaration. She succumbed to her injuries in the early hours of January 5, 2017.

Reliability of the Dying Declaration

During the trial, the prosecution faced substantial hurdles as the victim's immediate family—including her mother, sister, maternal aunt, and brother—refused to support the initial allegations. These key witnesses were declared hostile after testifying that the death resulted from an accidental cooking stove explosion rather than a criminal act. Despite the collapse of the testimony from the victim's kin, the High Court emphasized that the sanctity of a dying declaration, if recorded in accordance with legal protocol, remains a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.

The bench noted that the victim’s statement had been meticulously recorded by a Naib Tehsildar after a medical officer confirmed the patient was in a fit mental state to communicate. The court rejected the defense’s attempt to dismiss the declaration, noting that the influence of external factors on witnesses is a documented reality in such proceedings. As the court observed: "There are circumstances in which prosecution witnesses are won over, either emotionally or by material benefits." By distinguishing between the family members who had personal connections to the incident and the procedural integrity of the record provided by the public official, the judges concluded that the dying declaration provided a clear and reliable narrative of the crime committed by the husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law.

Failure to Establish Identity

While the convictions of the immediate family members were sustained, the court took a divergent view regarding the inclusion of Vipin and Madan. The appellants’ counsel successfully argued that the prosecution never undertook the essential process of identifying these two individuals. Although both names appeared in the dying declaration, neither was known to the victim’s family prior to the incident, nor were they subjected to a mandatory Test Identification Parade during the investigation phase.

Furthermore, the court scrutinized the trial proceedings and observed that none of the prosecution witnesses , even after being declared hostile , were able to identify the two men in the courtroom. The court also noted that the charges framed by the lower court lacked specific details, such as parentage or addresses, which could have helped isolate the identities of the accused from the general population. Because the burden of proof rests on the state to link the accused specifically to the crime, the lack of an identification mechanism proved fatal to the prosecution’s case against them. As stated in the judgment: "In view of the lack of identification, we are, thus, of the view that Vipin and Madan cannot be held guilty in the instant case."

Legal Scrutiny of Evidence

The appellants had raised several technical challenges, including the alleged disappearance of pages from the medical bed-head ticket and the lack of a detectable kerosene scent in the post-mortem report. However, the High Court determined these arguments insufficient to undermine the core evidence against the primary family unit. The judges affirmed that once a dying declaration is deemed truthful and free from the influence of tutoring, it can serve as a standalone basis for conviction, particularly when the victim identifies her own assailants.

The ruling underscores a balanced approach to the standards of evidence, separating the credibility of a victim's final testimony from the procedural necessity of identifying peripheral suspects. By confirming that the husband, Anuj Kumar, and his parents, Smt. Rajeshwari and Brajpal, were known to the victim and correctly identified in her statement, the court maintained their life imprisonment sentences. Conversely, the acquittal of Vipin and Madan serves as a reminder that constitutional protections against wrongful conviction require a clear, verified link between the accused and the alleged criminal act.

Following the High Court’s order, the conviction and sentencing of the primary three accused remain in force. For the two acquitted men, the court issued an immediate direction for their release, provided they are not required to remain in custody in connection with any other pending legal matters. The judgment concludes the current appellate phase for the case, with the High Court finding no cause to disturb the findings against the principal family members while correcting the evidentiary deficiencies related to the unidentified co-accused.