From Flames of Suspicion to Acquittal: Rajasthan HC Frees Man in Wife's Tragic Burn Death

In a meticulous reversal that underscores the sanctity of proof beyond reasonable doubt , the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur (Division Bench) has acquitted Soma Meena, overturning his life imprisonment conviction for allegedly murdering his wife Kanku Devi by setting her ablaze. Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Chandra Shekhar Sharma delivered the February 6, 2026 , judgment in Soma v. State , dismantling the trial court's reliance on a shaky dying declaration amid glaring evidentiary gaps.

A Village Inferno: The Incident Unraveled

The nightmare unfolded on September 14, 2015 , in Gamdi village under Jhallara police station, Udaipur district. Kanku Devi, married to Soma for 5-6 years and mother to one child, arrived at Salumber General Hospital with 90% burns. Her purported dying declaration (Ex.P-1), recorded by ASI Abdul Razzaq at 4:20 PM in the doctor's presence, accused Soma of dousing her in kerosene over a liquor money demand and igniting her. She died hours later in Udaipur's burn ward from burn shock.

Police registered FIR No. 152/2015 under Section 307 IPC , escalating to 302 IPC post-death. Trial court convicted Soma on June 6, 2018 , sentencing him to life plus Rs. 25,000 fine. His appeal challenged this, spotlighting the declaration's frailties—no magistrate involved despite proximity, no fitness endorsement, contradictory recording details.

This case echoes broader Rajasthan HC concerns on appellate delays, as noted in recent observations by Justice Farjand Ali: with "1000s of appeals pending for 20-30 years," early hearings are rare, amplifying the stakes of irrecoverable jail time if appeals succeed.

Prosecution's Fire, Defense's Counter-Blaze

Appellant's Plea: A House of Cards
Soma's counsel, Jayant Joshi for Vinod Sharma , torched the prosecution's foundation. The dying declaration was "wholly unreliable"—no Executive/Judicial Magistrate summoned (offices 500 feet away), no medical proof of Kanku's fit state amid 90% burns. Contradictions abounded: Ex.P-1 claimed recording at Salumber PS, but witnesses said hospital. Scribe (ASI's Munshi Rajesh) went unexamined. No alcoholism evidence surfaced. Soma claimed Kanku, mentally ill with fits treated by healers, self-immolated; he rushed from a nearby Ram Rasoi feast, sustained hand burns (Ex.P-2) saving her. Village witnesses backed his alibi; prosecution relied on "interested" relatives.

State's Stand: Declaration as Gospel
Public Prosecutor Rajesh Bhati defended Ex.P-1 as voluntary, doctor-corroborated, detailing Soma's liquor demand and attack. Oral versions to father Shankar (PW-11) and uncle Kanji (PW-4) at hospital matched. Soma's burns proved presence; act was murderously intentional. No eyewitness needed— dying declaration suffices.

Court's Scalpel: Dissecting Doubt in Dying Words

The bench conducted a " holistic re-appraisal ," finding prosecution evidence crumbling under scrutiny. Pivotal: Ex.P-1's procedural voids—no fitness certification (pulse/BP unrecorded), no magistrate, unknown scribe, place mismatch. Doctors (PWs 1,12) admitted 90% burns could be accidental; Soma's injuries compatible with rescue.

Witness clashes were damning—Shankar/Kanji claimed Salumber talks, but inquest (Ex.P-3) and IOs (PWs 16,17) confirmed they went straight to Udaipur. Defense chorus (PWs 3,6,7,9,10) painted Soma at feast, Kanku as mentally unstable prone to self-harm; recoveries (three burnt matchsticks, Ex.P-6) suggested deliberate self-ignition, not sudden assault.

Precedents sealed the fate: - Manjunath v. State of Karnataka (2023): Unexamined scribe, absent relative/endorse nullifies declaration. - Gargi v. State of Haryana (2019): Section 106 Evidence Act can't shift burden sans foundational proof of presence. - Jayamma v. State of Karnataka (2021): Strict scrutiny for fitness in severe burns; no post-statement endorsements. - State of MP v. Ramveer Singh (2025): Grave doubts favor accused.

No Section 106 burden on Soma—prosecution witnesses placed him outside. Investigation lapses (unprobed motive, unexamined key figures) compounded failure.

Key Observations

"The alleged dying declaration Ex.P-1... does not inspire confidence when examined in the light of the evidence of PW-2 Abdul Razzaq and PW-1 Dr. Nitin Shah and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjunath..."

"The circumstances attendant to the recording of the alleged dying declaration (Ex.P-1) creates a serious and substantial doubt as to its genuineness and reliability."

" Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. "

Acquittal Echoes: Justice Delayed, Now Delivered

Appeal allowed; June 6, 2018 , conviction set aside. Soma acquitted under Section 302 IPC , released forthwith (barring other cases), with bonds under Section 437A CrPC.

This ruling fortifies dying declaration safeguards—magistrate preference, fitness mandates—potentially sparing innocents in burn "suicide vs. murder" probes. It signals appellate courts' vigilance against trial overreach, especially amid Rajasthan's backlog, ensuring doubt trumps peril.