Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Raj) 10

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, JJ.
Soma, S/o Sh. Dungar - Appellant
Versus
State, Through Pp - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 181 of 2018
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jayant Joshi For Mr. Vinod Sharma.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP

The reliability of a dying declaration is critical for conviction; procedural lapses and contradictions can lead to acquittal when benefits of doubt favor the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction for murder - Dying declaration held to be unreliable due to lack of medical verification regarding the victim's fitness to make the statement, procedural lapses, and contradictions in testimonies. (Paras 38, 40, 53)

(B) Criminal Law - Principle of Benefit of Doubt - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Given the infirmities in the evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted. (Paras 51, 54)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife, who succumbed to burn injuries. The dying declaration recorded was pivotal but tainted with serious doubts regarding its credibility and authenticity. (Paras 1-4, 17, 38)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's decision was flawed due to reliance on an unverified dying declaration surrounded by suspicious circumstances, leading to a conclusion that failed to meet the standard of proof required for conviction. (Paras 46-54)

Issues: The core issues were the admissibility and credibility of the dying declaration versus the credibility of the accused's defense against the charge. (Paras 39-48)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that serious inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the recording of the dying declaration necessitated its rejection as reliable evidence, thus impacting the prosecution's burden to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 52, 53)

Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted. (Paras 54, 56)

Table of Content
1. overview of the prosecution casing and initial facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments challenging the reliability of evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. prosecution's stance on the dying declaration's credibility. (Para 16)
4. testimonies from prosecution witnesses regarding evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. testimonies from defense witnesses undermining prosecution. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. court's critical assessment of dying declaration evidentiary standards. (Para 37 , 38 , 41 , 42)
7. conclusion of acquittal based on reasonable doubt. (Para 52 , 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused–appellant Soma son of Shri Dungar, assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 06.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumber, District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial Court), in Sessions Case No. 122/2015 (State v. Soma), whereby the accused–appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 14.09.2015, the Police Station, Salumber, received an intimation from the General Hospital, Salumber, vide report Ex.P-15, to the effect that one Smt. Kanku devi, wife of Soma Meena, resident of Naya Gaon Gavdi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jhallara, had been brought to the hospital for treatment in burnt condition. Upon receipt of the said information, ASI Abdul Razzaq was deputed to go to the hospital to record the statement of the injured-victim. In view of the seriousness of her condition, the injured was thereafter, referred to Udaipur for advanced medical treatment and was accordingly shifted.

3. Dying declaration (Ex.P-1) of Smt. Kanku devi was recorded on the same day i.e. on 14.09.2015 at about 4:20 PM, in the presence of the attending doctor. In her statement, the injured disclosed that “she was married about 5–6 years prior to the incident, had one child from the wedlock, and was residing with her in-laws. She stated that on the date of occurrence, at around 3:00 PM, her husband Soma poured kerosene oil upon her and set her ablaze. According to her, the accused had demanded money for purchasing liquor, and upon her refusal on the ground that she had no money, he committed the aforesaid act. She further stated that at the time of the incident no other family member was present in the house and that upon her raising alarm, her brother- in-law Narayan took her to the hospital at Salumber. She also alleged that her husband was in addiction of alcohol and used to subject her physical cruelty.” The dying declaration of the victim was forwarded along with the intimation letter Ex.P-15 issued by the Police Station, Salumber, through Constable Kamal Kishore to Police Station Jhallara for necessary action, as the place of occurrence falling within its territorial jurisdiction i.e. Jhallara.

4. On the basis of the dying declaration of the injured (Ex.P-1), a formal First Information Report bearing No. 152/2015 (Ex.P-16) came to be registered at Police Station Jhallara, District Udaipur, against the accused–appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, during the course of treatment, Smt. Kanku Devi succumbed to her injuries, having sustained approximately 90% burn injuries and therefore, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added.

5. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge- sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section302 IPC.

6. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Section 302 of IPC to the accused-appellant, who denied the charges and sought trial.

7. During the