Is A Doctor's Specific 'Fit State Of Mind' Certificate Necessary To Rely On A Dying Declaration? Allahabad High Court Answers

"…the requirement of a doctor's endorsement regarding the mental fitness of the deceased to make his/her declaration is not a rule of law or a mandatory provision, but merely a rule of prudence; the ultimate test is whether the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary, and free from any tutoring, prompting, or other suspicious circumstances", a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi ruled. (emphasis supplied)

The observation was made while dismissing an appeal filed by the husband and confirming his conviction [under Sections 302, 498A IPC] and life sentence for pouring kerosene oil on his sleeping wife and setting her ablaze.

The bench, however, allowed the connected appeal filed by the accused's father, who was convicted solely under Section 498A IPC by the Trial Court, and acquitted him of the charge.

Case in brief

Briefly put, an initial written report was filed by the informant-mother on November 16, 2017, stating that the appellant (Suhail) and his family members set her daughter ablaze over unfulfilled demands for a four-wheeler vehicle and taunts regarding her childlessness.

The victim, Sanno, who sustained 95% superficial to deep thermal burn injuries all over her body, succumbed to septicemia in the Hospital on November 30.

During the trial, all the primary witnesses of fact, including the informant-mother during her cross-examination, turned hostile and recanted from the prosecution's narrative.

Despite this, the trial court convicted the husband and father-in-law (appellants) on the basis of the dying declaration, the evidence of the Naib Tehsildar who recorded the statement of the deceased, and a Doctor who had certified that the deceased, at the time of the recording of the dying declaration, was in a conscious condition and she was able to give her statement.

Challenging their conviction, the appellants moved the High Court, contending that with 95% deep burns and severely congested internal organs, it was highly improbable that the deceased was in a condition to speak or make a coherent statement.

They also contended that the dying declaration, on which their conviction was based, was doubtful in the absence of independent corroboration.

Lastly, the husband claimed in his defence that a kerosene oil lamp was lit above the clay stove where the deceased was cooking food and it accidentally fell on the ground, and due to the spark, fire caught the clothes of the deceased.

High Court's observations

Scrutinizing the defence arguments, the division bench observed that if the incident had truly been an accident, the husband would have taken her severely burned wife to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and promptly inform the occurrence to the local police station.

Instead, the record indicated that the husband-appellant disappeared and fled from the place of occurrence, due to which, the parents of the deceased had to get her admitted to the hospital.

"…from the conduct of the accused-appellant, Suhail, it is amply clear that it is not an accidental death but a homicidal death", the bench said, adding that his conduct corroborated the prosecution's case.

Regarding the credibility of the dying declaration, the bench noted that no member of the deceased's paternal family was present at the time of recording her dying declaration, which made it clear that there was no possibility or chance for tutoring and prompting of the deceased about the statement.

Thus, the bench concluded that the dying declaration was free from tutoring, prompting, and false concoction, thereby inspiring confidence in its trustworthiness and reliability.

On the absence of a specific certificate/endorsement regarding the mental fitness of the deceased to make the declaration, the bench clarified that it was not a rule of law or a mandatory provision, but merely a rule of prudence (relied on Laxman v. State of Maharashtra 2002).

Thus, the bench concluded that the appellant (Suhail), was rightly convicted by the Trial Court. His appeal was thus dismissed, and a life sentence and conviction under Sections 302, 498A IPC was affirmed.

However, it found the implication and involvement of the accused father-in-law, who lived in a separate house, to be doubtful based on the site plan. Thus, his appeal was allowed and his conviction under Section 498A IPC was set aside.

Case Title - Suhail vs State of UP along with a connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 343