2026 Supreme(All) 628

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, INDRAJEET SHUKLA, JJ.
 
Smt. Ram Rati and others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent 
Criminal Appeal No. 2275 of 2019
Decided On : 22-05-2026
 

A dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence that can solely form the basis of a conviction if found reliable. In cases of dowry death, once the prosecution proves foundational elements, the burden shifts to the accused, and sentencing must be individualized and proportional rather than automatically punitive.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304-B and 498-A - Dowry death - Cruelty and harassment - Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act - Once foundational requirements are established, burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption - Interpretation of "soon before death" as a relative term linked to proximity of demand and harassment. (Paras 42, 47, 51, 104)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Dying declaration - Admissibility and evidentiary value - Corroboration not a mandatory legal requirement but a rule of prudence - Statement recorded by a competent authority, if voluntary and coherent, serves as substantive evidence - Medical certificate is desirable but not a condition precedent where the declarant's mental fitness is independently verified. (Paras 57, 93, 97, 98, 99)

(C) Sentencing - Proportionality - Section 304-B does not mandate life imprisonment in every instance - Sentencing must be guided by judicial discretion and the degree of culpability - Constitutional Courts possess the authority to commute life sentences into fixed-term sentences based on the period of actual incarceration and surrounding facts. (Paras 116, 120, 124)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged their conviction regarding the death of a young married woman due to severe burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to persistent physical and mental cruelty in connection with illegal dowry demands, ultimately culminating in her death shortly after marriage. The defense contended that the incident was a suicide and that no dowry demands existed.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the dying declaration, having been recorded by an independent authority and corroborated by testimonies, was highly credible. It held that the foundational ingredients of the offences were satisfied and the defense failed to rebut the statutory presumption of guilt.

Issues: The central issues addressed were the reliability of the dying declaration, whether corroboration is an absolute necessity for conviction, and whether the extreme sentence of life imprisonment was proportional to the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: A dying declaration that inspires confidence and is recorded properly constitutes substantive evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration. Furthermore, while the law allows for life imprisonment for dowry death, such punishment is not automatic; judicial discretion must ensure the sentence is proportionate to the culpability and gravity of the crime.

Result: Conviction upheld; sentence modified to period of imprisonment already undergone.

Table of Content
1. introductory summary and indices of the criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution case, framing of charges, and preliminary evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. appellate court duty to independently reassess evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. evidence of fact witnesses and dying declaration description. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. statutory requirements for section 304b and section 498a ipc. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
6. detailed analysis of testimonial consistency and medical reports. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
7. arguments presented by both appellant and respondent. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
8. court validation of dying declaration and rebuttal of defense. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112)
9. affirmation of guilt for the provided offenses. (Para 113)
10. determination of sentencing proportionality and commutation authority. (Para 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125)
11. final orders regarding custodial release and compliance. (Para 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130)

JUDGMENT :

Indrajeet Shukla, J.

For the sake of convenience, instant judgment is divided into following parts:

Index
Serial No.	Heading
1	Introductory facts
2	Case of prosecution
3	Scope of criminal appeal (Being first appeal against conviction)
4	Relevant statutory provisions and authoritative pronouncements
5	Analysis of evidence
6	Contentions raised on behalf of appellants
7	Submissions on behalf of the State
8	Conclusion
9	Proportionality of sentence

Introductory Facts

1. Embittered with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 6, Lucknow, in Session Trial No. 440 of 2013 (State Vs. Sunil Kumar & others), arising out of Crime No. 119 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow, instant appeal has been preferred before this Court.

2. Conviction and sentence awarded against the appellants under different penal provisions are tabulated as under:

Case of Prosecution

3. The prosecution story in nutshell as disclosed by first informant Santosh Kumar is, his daughter Sujata was married to one Sunil Kumar son of Babulal, native of village Kandhar Tala, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow as per Hindu rites and rituals about one and a half years prior to the occurrence. After the customary farewell for the first time, his daughter went to her in- laws house. When she came to her paternal home (maika) she told her parents that her mother-in-law Ramrati, father-in-law Babulal and her husband Sunil Kumar were asking for additional dowry in the shape of motorcycle and a fan. Owing to his poor financial condition, first informant could not fulfill the said demand. Due to social pressure, first informant’s daughter was again sent to her matrimonial home (sasural). A few days later, his daughter sent word to her parents with respect to harassment and demand of dowry. The first informant counselled her to stay at her in-laws home. On 13.05.2012, at approximately 10:00 AM, first informant’s brother-in-law (Shivdin), called him and informed that his daughter had caught fire. Her in-laws were taking first informant’s daughter to Civil Hospital, Lucknow. Upon receiving the information, the first informant rushed to the Civil Hospital. First informant’s daughter was admitted to the Civil Hospital for treatment. After admission, the in-laws fled from the hospital. The first informant and his family members were involved in treatmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document