Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Suresh - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By Inspector Of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 540 Of 2013
Decided On : 04-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder of wife – Life sentence – Appellant suffers from 40% physical disability resulting from a polio attack – Version that appellant had not made any attempt to take deceased to hospital is not only in contradiction with deposition of a PW but would also be fatal for prosecution case itself – Doctor deposed that there were no external injuries on body of deceased except burn injuries – This rules out any possibility of assault on deceased before she had caught fire – In appeal, without appreciating facts of case in their proper perspective, High Court also mechanically upheld conviction and life sentence of appellant – Variances in deceased’s statements cast serious doubts on veracity of her subsequent statement made before Judicial Magistrate where deceased had blamed appellant for incident – In cases where dying declaration is suspicious, it is not safe to convict accused in absence of corroborative evidence – In a case like present one, where deceased has been changing her stance and has completely turned around her statements, such a dying declaration cannot become sole basis for conviction in absence of any other corroborative evidence – Normally, where death is caused by burning through kerosene, smell of kerosene would definitely remain for a few hours, however, smell does weaken after some time – Since, in present case, deceased was immediately brought to hospital barely within a few hours of incident, if kerosene was involved then smell of kerosene ought to have been there – There was no such smell – In spite of a dying declaration, total reliance on it would be misplaced – Appellant deserves to be given benefit of doubt – Appellant acquitted (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 26] – Dying declaration – Evidentiary value – Dying declaration is an important piece of evidence and conviction can be made by relying solely on a dying declaration alone as it holds immense importance in criminal law – However, such reliance should be placed after ascertaining quality of dying declaration and considering entire facts of a given case – If a dying declaration is surrounded by doubt or there are inconsistent dying declarations by deceased, then Courts must look for corroborative evidence to find out which dying declaration is to be believed – This will depend upon facts of the case and Courts are required to act cautiously in such cases. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has challenged Order dated 28.02.2012 by which High Court of Madras has upheld appellant’s conviction and life sentence for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Appellant acquitted by setting aside order of High Court dated 28.02.2012. Appellant shall be released from jail forthwith.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The dying declaration is an important piece of evidence but cannot be sole basis for conviction when it is suspicious or contradicted by other evidence (!) (!) . - In cases with multiple dying declarations, courts must scrutinize and corroborate with other material evidence to determine which declaration to believe (!) (!) . - The Court acquitted the appellant and set aside the High Court decision, noting lack of corroboration and issues with the dying declaration and surrounding evidence (e.g., smell of kerosene, seizure testimony, consistency of statements) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
1. The appellant before us has challenged the order dated 28.02.2012 by which the High Court of Madras has upheld the appellant’s conviction and life sentence for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’).
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 12.09.2008 at around 6 pm, the appellant caused the death of his wife (‘deceased’) by pouring kerosene on her body and setting her on fire, which ultimately resulted in her death after a period of approximately three weeks in a hospital. The appellant used to reside in his house at Narayanachetti Street, Tuticorin with his wife and a 2 ½ year old son. The Mother-in-law (PW1) and Father-in-law (PW2) of the appellant used to reside in the street next to the appellant’s street. On the fateful day i.e., 12.09.2008 when the child of the deceased was crying, the deceased called her mother (PW1) to pacify the child and the child was taken away by her mother (PW1) to her house which was in the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, PW1 and PW2 were informed by a neighbourhood child that their daughter Sumathi (deceased) had caught fire. She was then immediately taken to a nearby hospital, and then to another hospital (American Hospital) and eventually admitted in a Government Hospital at Thoothukudi.
3. At around 9:30 pm, when police received the information, PW9 (Head Constable) reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. In her statement to PW9, the deceased stated that she caught fire while working in the kitchen. She also states that at the time of the incident, the appellant was sleeping and when she screamed, the appellant woke up and tried to put off the fire. On the basis of this statement, a general diary entry was made by police on 12.09.2008.
4. Thereafter, on 15.09.2008, a case for accidental fire was registered. On the same day, PW15 (SubInspector) visited the scene of the occurrence and seized a kerosene can and matchstick. On this day, police recorded another statement of the deceased where she stated that her husband had set her on fire by pouring kerosene and she did not state so in her earlier statement as her husband was present while PW9 recorded her statement on 12.09.2008. On 15.09.2008, the accidental fire case was converted to a case under section 307 of IPC against the appellant. Finally, upon the death of the deceased on 02.10.2008, section 307 of IPC was modified to section 302 of IPC.
5. Before the death of the deceased, on 18.09.2008, a Judicial Magistrate recorded a statement of the deceased and this statement was used by the prosecution as the dying declaration. In this statement, the deceased stated before the Judicial Magistrate (PW12) that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire on 12.09.2008.
6. The Trial Court treated this statement given to PW12 as the dying declaration and convicted the appellant under section 302 of IPC. In appeal before the High Court, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, imposed by the Trial Court, have been affirmed by the impugned order dated 28.02.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is here before us.
7. We have heard both sides and perused the material before us.
8. Before coming to the issue of dying declaration, we would like to go through the evidence of other witnesses who were there before the Trial Court. There were as many as 17 witnesses from the side of the prosecution. PW1 and PW2, who are the mother and father of the deceased respectively, had both deposed that when they reached the house of the deceased, they found the deceased was burnt and also deposed that PW3 (neighbour) had already reached there and tried to douse the fire. PW1 and PW2 also deposed that they were the ones who had taken the deceased to the hospital.
9. PW1 and PW2 also tried to suggest that the appellant had set the deceased on fire and neither did he make any attempt to douse the fire nor did he accompany them when they
Dying declaration – In cases where dying declaration is suspicious, it is not safe to convict accused in absence of corroborative evidence.
Dying declaration – In cases where Court finds that there exist more than one dying declarations, each one of them must be examined with care and caution and only after satisfying itself as to which ....
A dying declaration, if made in a fit mental state and corroborated by witnesses, can be sufficient for conviction without the need for further corroboration, emphasizing the sanctity of such stateme....
Courts may rely on dying declarations for conviction if they are consistent and reliable; contradictions undermine their credibility, leading to acquittal.
Reliability of dying declarations is crucial for conviction under IPC Section 304(ii); conviction upheld as statements were consistent and trustworthy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
