Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 497

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, AJAY KUMAR-II, JJ.
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4280 of 2011
Decided On : 26-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Abhishek Sharma, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, Ram Ashish Pandey
For the Respondent:Aditya Kumar Misra, Aditya Kumar Tripathi, Govt. Advocate

When a homicidal act is committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation, and specific intent to kill is not established, the conviction should be categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, prioritizing the accused's knowledge over specific murderous intent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304 Part II, 354, 452 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary value of dying declaration - A dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the court - Corroboration is a rule of prudence, not an absolute rule of law (Paras 30, 42, 45).

(B) Culpable homicide vs. Murder - Distinctions - Where an act is committed in the heat of the moment without prior enmity or premeditation, and the intent to kill is not established, the offence may be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, rather than murder (Paras 53, 56, 57).

Facts of the case:
The accused-appellant entered a house, engaged in a scuffle, and set a minor girl on fire. The victim succumbed to burn injuries, specifically septicemia, seven days after the incident. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder, house-trespass, and outraging the modesty of a woman. The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court, contending the prosecution failed to establish the charges and that the medical cause of death did not warrant a murder conviction.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the reliability of the dying declaration. However, regarding the charge of outraging modesty, the court found the testimony of the eyewitness unreliable for failing to align with the dying declaration. Given the absence of premeditation or prior enmity, the act was determined to lack the requisite elements for murder, supporting a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Issues: (1) Whether the dying declaration of the deceased was reliable enough to form the basis of a conviction. (2) Whether the offence committed amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Ratio Decidendi: A dying declaration is a significant evidentiary exception and, if found truthful, coherent, and voluntary, does not require corroboration to sustain a conviction. In cases of sudden provocation or lack of premeditation, if the prosecution fails to establish the intent required for murder under the specified clauses, the offense should be treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II, focusing on the offender's knowledge of the likely consequences rather than the intent to cause death.

Result: Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and converted to Section 304 Part II IPC. Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 354 IPC.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution case, investigation procedures, and initial trial court conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. parties' contentions regarding evidentiary sufficiency and classification of offense. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. analysis of witness testimonies and evidentiary record. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. principles regarding the admissibility, reliability, and sole evidentiary value of dying declarations. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
5. assessing charges (trespass, molestation) based on witness credibility and documentary corroboration. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
6. distinction between murder and culpable homicide (section 304 part ii) considering lack of premeditation. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
7. final acquittal on specific charges, conviction reduction, and sentencing order. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 07.07.2011 / 11.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Etawah in Sessions Trial No.394 of 2008 (State Vs. Pawan Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.90 of 2008, under Sections 452, 354, 302 IPC, Police Station - Ekdil, District Etawah convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. Rs.10,000/- with stipulation of default clause, under Section 452 IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- with stipulation of default clause and under Section 354 IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- with stipulation of default clause. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution story, in nutshell, as unfolded in written report (Ex.Ka.-1), is as follows:

On 02.04.2008 at about 12:00 Noon, when Kanchan, daughter of the complainant Santosh Kumar, aged about 16 years and a student of class XI returned home from school, kept her bag and was changing her clothes and the younger son of the informant namely, Vikas aged about 13 years was at home, the accused Pawan Kumar entered into the house of the complainant through the roof of the neighbour and started outraging the modesty of the daughter of the complainant. On being objected, he became annoyed. The son of the informant, who was outside the house came inside, to which the accused Pawan picked the kerosene container, poured it on Kanchan, lit the matchstick, set her ablaze and fled away from the roof of the house. The son of the informant, who witnessed the incident, started shrieking, on which the neighbour Smt. Urmila came at the spot and extinguished the fire that broke out in the roof of the house. At the time of incident, the complainant was working as a labourer along with his wife. Urmila told that he had seen Pawan Kumar running from the place of incident.

3. On the basis of written report (Ex.Ka.-1), on 02.04.2008 at 16:30 hours, Chik First Information Report (Ex.Ka-5) as Case Crime No.90 of 2008, under Sections 354, 452, 307 IPC was registered against the accused at Police Station - Ekdil, District Etawah.

4. The complainant immediately took his daughter in burnt condition to Moti Jheel Hospital, Etawah by rickshaw and got her admitted there, where she was medico legally examined. On 02.04.2008 itself, the statement / dying declaration of the victim (Ex. Ka.3) was recorded by the Tehsildar. He also took her signature over the same. Victim was conscious at the time of statement. On the very next day her daughter was referred to Kanpur Ursala Hospital, where she remained admitted for 6 - 7 days and during treatment, she took her last breath.

5. On 10.04.2008 at 3:20 P.M., the autopsy of the deceased Kanchan was performed by Dr. V.P. Chaturvedi, who found following injuries on her person :

(i) Superficial to deep burn injuries all over the body except