Contradictory Dying Declarations & Accused's Saving Acts Insufficient for Murder Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal - 2025-08-08

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case, Cites 'Gravely Contradictory' Dying Declarations

Jodhpur, Rajasthan - The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the state against the 1998 acquittal of a man accused of burning a woman to death, holding that major inconsistencies between the victim's two dying declarations failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. A division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg and Justice Ravi Chirania emphasized that the accused's actions—attempting to douse the flames and rushing the victim to the hospital—were inconsistent with the conduct of a murderer.

---

Brief Overview of the Case

The case dates back to March 31, 1995, when Chanda Soni, a school teacher, suffered severe burn injuries at her home. The accused, her neighbor Ram Lal, was acquitted of murder charges by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, on July 6, 1998. The State of Rajasthan subsequently filed a criminal appeal, challenging the acquittal and arguing that the trial court had erred in its assessment of the evidence, particularly two conflicting dying declarations made by the deceased.

Arguments Presented

State's Position: The prosecution, represented by Public Prosecutor Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, built its case on the second dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate on April 11, 1995. In this statement, Ms. Soni explicitly accused Ram Lal of setting her on fire over a property dispute. The state also relied on the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses: the deceased's six-year-old son (PW-5 Rahul) and a sixteen-year-old boy (PW-7 Jeevan Dhan), both of whom claimed to have seen the accused commit the crime.

Defence's Position: Mr. Jayat Jain and Ms. Urvashi Kalla, counsel for the respondent Ram Lal, vehemently opposed the appeal. They highlighted the stark contradictions between the two dying declarations. -

In the first statement ( parcha bayan ) given to the police on the day of the incident (March 31, 1995), Ms. Soni claimed she had set herself on fire due to marital disputes with her husband. Crucially, she stated that Ram Lal had rushed to her rescue, poured water on her, and sustained burn injuries to his own hands in the process. -

In the second declaration, recorded 11 days later, she completely changed her narrative, blaming Ram Lal and praising her husband as a "god-like man."

The defence argued that the victim's own admission that Ram Lal saved her and took her to the hospital undermined the prosecution's entire story. They also questioned the credibility of the "eyewitnesses," pointing out that the deceased herself had stated she was alone during the incident and that the high boundary walls of the house would have made it impossible for the witnesses to see inside.

Court’s Application of Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously analyzed the legal principles governing appellate interference in acquittal judgments and the evidentiary value of multiple, conflicting dying declarations.

The bench cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT, Delhi) (2023) , which lays down that for a dying declaration to be reliable, it must be voluntary, consistent, and made in a fit state of mind. The Court observed:

"...the dying declarations of the deceased which is Ex-P7 and Ex-P9 fail to pass this test and meet the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court..."

The judgment underscored the fatal inconsistencies in the victim's statements. The Court noted how she first blamed her husband and then, in a complete "somersault," praised him while implicating the accused.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The Court found the accused's post-incident conduct to be a critical factor in favor of his innocence. The bench reasoned:

"An interesting and an important point which this Court has noted that even if this Court accepts the version of prosecution that the respondent caused fire on the deceased then why he would take steps for defusing the fire and without wasting any time would immediately take her to the hospital in order to save her life. According to us, if the respondent had caused fire then he would not have done what he did... for saving her life."

Furthermore, the Court concurred with the trial court's decision to discard the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses (PW-5 and PW-7), stating:

"We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that PW-5 and PW-7 are not the eye witnesses because both of them were not present inside the house... and further according to deceased herself, she was all alone at the time of incident and no one witnessed the incident."

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's 1998 judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of Ram Lal was upheld. The court directed Ram Lal to furnish a personal bond as per Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a further appeal to the Supreme Court.