1. Appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on dying declarations and circumstantial evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja, JJ
MOHD.AYUB – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL.A.-986/2004
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jitendra Sethi, Sidhanth, Hemant Gulati, Shobit Dimri, Bharat, Keshav Sethi, Rajesh Kaushik
For the Respondents: Aman Usman, Manvendra Yadav
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jitendra Sethi, Sidhanth, Hemant Gulati, Shobit Dimri, Bharat, Keshav Sethi, Rajesh Kaushik
For the Respondents: Aman Usman, Manvendra Yadav
Convictions based on dying declarations require the statements to be voluntary, truthful, and made in a fit state of mind. Material inconsistencies between multiple declarations, procedural lapses, and failure to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying declaration - Conviction based on dying declarations - Declarations must be voluntary, truthful, and made in a fit state of mind to form the sole basis of conviction (Para 41). Where declarations suffer from inconsistencies, procedural infirmities, and improbabilities, Courts must exercise caution in placing reliance on them (Para 41).
(B) Evidence - Dying declaration recorded by police - While not inadmissible per se, veracity is highly doubtful when the statement contains unusually detailed particulars unlikely to be provided by a person with critical injuries, and when there is a lack of medical fitness certification or the involvement of a Magistrate or Doctor (Paras 46, 55-56).
(C) Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires the establishment of a complete chain of events that leads only to the hypothesis of guilt and excludes every other possibility of innocence (Para 53).
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a woman who died from 90% burn injuries. The conviction was primarily based on two dying declarations and circumstantial evidence, as the purported eyewitnesses turned hostile. The appellant contended that he was called to the spot to save the deceased and sustained burn injuries himself.
Findings of Court:
The court found the first dying declaration doubtful due to descriptors likely added by the medical officer and the absence of the deceased's signature. The second declaration was deemed improbable due to excessive detail and the absence of a medical fitness certificate. Furthermore, the declarations were inconsistent with each other and contradicted a version recorded in the police "Brief Facts," which suggested a scuffle rather than an intentional act of murder.
Issues: Whether the dying declarations were reliable and truthful enough to sustain a conviction and whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing to the appellant's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: Where multiple dying declarations are inconsistent in material particulars and the surrounding circumstances—including the nature of injuries and contradictions in police records—cast doubt on the intent and veracity of the statements, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Circumstantial evidence must exclude all other hypotheses of innocence to justify conviction.
Result: Impugned orders set aside; appellant acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends dying declarations are unreliable and inconsistent; prosecution argues they are consistent and sufficient for conviction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
3. Dying declarations found unreliable due to inconsistencies, procedural infirmities, and lack of corroboration; circumstantial evidence insufficient. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )
4. Dying declaration must be voluntary, truthful, and made in fit state of mind; otherwise, requires corroboration and cannot solely sustain conviction. (Para 41 , 42 )
5. Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged from bail bond. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 )
6. What are the principles for relying on a dying declaration as sole basis of conviction?
A dying declaration must be voluntary, truthful, and made in a fit state of mind; if reliable, conviction can be based on it without corroboration. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 )
7. Can inconsistency between multiple dying declarations affect their evidentiary value?
Yes, material inconsistencies create doubt regarding truthfulness and veracity, reducing evidentiary value and requiring corroboration. (Para 47 , 48 , 50 )
8. Is a dying declaration recorded by a police officer admissible?
Yes, it is not inadmissible solely for being recorded by a police officer, but its reliability must be assessed in the facts and circumstances. (Para 55 , 56 )
9. What standard applies to circumstantial evidence for conviction?
Circumstances must form a complete chain inconsistent with innocence and pointing only to guilt, excluding every other hypothesis. (Para 53 , 54 )
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20.03.2026 Pronounced on: 16.04.2026 + CRL.A. 986/2004 MOHD. AYUB .....Appellant Through: Mr.Jitendra Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sidhanth, Mr.Hemant Gulati, Mr.Shobit Dimri, Mr.Bharat, Mr.Keshav Sethi &
Mr.Rajesh Kaushik, Advs.
versus STATE N.C.T Delhi .....Respondent Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP for the State with Mr.Manvendra Yadav, Adv. along with Insp. Chetan Mandia, PS Lajpat Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, challenging the Judgement dated 16.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „Trial Court‟) in S.C. No. 216/2000 (MM) arising out of FIR No. 223/2000 registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, vide which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟).
2. The appellant further challenges the Order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court, sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that:
(a) On 28.03.2000 at about 10:55 P.M. on receipt of DD No. 24 regarding information received from Safdarjung Hospital through Duty Constable Om Parkash that one lady has been admitted in the hospital by her neighbour Nirmala in 90% burnt condition, PW-15/S.I. Vijay Singh reached the hospital.
(b) Prior to that, in the MLC report of the deceased (Ex.PW-
13/A), the Doctor, PW-13/Dr.Upender Sharma opined that the deceased had been brought by her neighbour- PW- 2/Nirmala and that the deceased had herself stated that she was burnt when “Ayub (her new lover) poured oil (kerosene oil) from stove and set her on fire she was pouring kerosene into the stove.”.
(c) PW-15/S.I. Vijay Singh thereafter recorded the statement of the deceased (Ex-PW-15/C). She mentioned that she had lived at A 59/14, Shera Mohalla for the last 4 to 5 years. She had been married to one Dubar and had three children from her marriage. She stated that her husband had expired about six years ago. Since then, she had been supporting her children by cleaning houses. About three years ago she had met the appellant, who was the son of Rehman Elahi, resident of Sarnbhal Heda P.S- Mirapur, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. The appellant had sexual relations with her and used to provide weekly maintenance to her. He was working in some factory. On 28.03.2000 at about 8:00 P.M., the appellant came to her house with a bottle of liquor and started drinking. She told him not to take the same and he should pay for her expenses, but he did not listen and continued drinking. On that, an altercation took place between them. During that time, the appellant picked up the kerosene oil can, poured the kerosene over her and pushed her on the burning stove, by which she caught fire. The appellant then fled from the spot. In the meantime, her neighbour- PW-2/Nirmala reached and poured the water on her and extinguished the fire. She stated that the appellant had poured the kerosene over her and pushed her on the burning stove with the intention to kill her.
(d) PW-15/S.I. Vijay Singh opined that the case was fit for registration of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
(e) Thereafter, police officials went to the place of the incident.
A Seizure Memo (Ex-PW-2/A) was prepared and the crime team as well as the photographer were called.
(f) Unfortunately, the deceased passed away on 29.03.2000 at around 6:30 A.M.
(g)The Postmortem report recorded the cause of death as “shock caused by antemortem thermal burn injuries”.
(h)The appellant was arrested at around 6:30 P.M. on
29.03.2000 from his house in Delhi.
(i) The Brief Facts (Ex.PW-15/DA) were recorded by PW-
15/S.I. Vijay Singh on 01.04.2000
