Reliable Dying Declaration Can Form Basis For Acquittal Too: Allahabad High Court
Deceased had told the Magistrate that her burns were accidental.
The Allahabad High Court has held that a dying declaration which is reliable enough to sustain a conviction can equally form the basis of an acquittal, the standard of proof for an acquittal being merely preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court was hearing appeals by a husband and his mother against their conviction for cruelty and dowry death, in...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a dying declaration which is reliable enough to sustain a conviction can equally form the basis of an acquittal, the standard of proof for an acquittal being merely preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court was hearing appeals by a husband and his mother against their conviction for cruelty and dowry death, in a case where the deceased had told a Magistrate, within two hours of the incident, that her burns were accidental.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held,
“When a reliable dying declaration can form the basis of a conviction, the standard required for which is proof beyond reasonable doubt, it can certainly form the basis of an acquittal, the standard of proof required for which is merely preponderance of probabilities, more so, when there is no good ground to disbelieve the genuineness of the dying declaration, as it was recorded by a Magistrate in presence of a doctor, after being satisfied that the deceased was fit to give her statement and there is no good ground to disbelieve the correctness of the dying declaration.”
Ruby Singh was married to Shivraj Singh in 2007. She suffered burn injuries at her matrimonial home on 6th December 2011 and was taken to SIPS Hospital, Lucknow, where she died on 13th December 2011.
Her dying declaration was recorded the same evening by an Additional City Magistrate in the presence of a doctor. She stated that she had been cleaning the kitchen, where a lit candle was kept, when a container of kerosene fell from above and burnt her. She said no one else was inside the house and her husband had lifted her and taken her to hospital.
On 14th December 2011, the deceased's mother complained that Shivraj Singh, his mother Amita Singh and his father Deshratna Singh had harassed Ruby for a demand of Rs.1 lakh and a motorcycle, and Shivraj had set her ablaze in connivance with his parents and a friend. A charge-sheet followed under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The postmortem examination report gave the cause of death as septicemia resulting from antemortem septic burn wounds.
The Trial Court held that the prosecution witnesses had established harassment for dowry, and preferred the opinion of a forensic medicine expert examined as PW-13. It held that the injuries were not accidental but suicidal or homicidal, over the dying declaration. It also relied on the appellants having suffered no burn injuries although they claimed to have tried to save the deceased. Both were convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to varying terms of rigorous imprisonment.
Both appellants approached the High Court through the same advocate, who did not disclose the pendency of the co-accused's appeal against the same order. The Court connected the two after noticing the omission itself, and recorded that as counsel could render no effective assistance, it examined the entire trial court record with the assistance of the Additional Government Advocate.
On the dowry allegation, the Court observed that no demand was said to have been made at the time of the marriage, and only customary items were given. It observed that the complainant had prepared no list of the alleged dowry gifts.
Although the complainant, her husband and her daughters deposed that Ruby had complained of harassment, none of them alleged that a demand had been made to any of them. The Court observed that the allegation surfaced only after Ruby's death and was not made during the week she was under treatment.
It noted that Shivraj already owned a motorcycle and a double-storeyed house in which the couple lived below his parents, Ruby was earning, her mother-in-law looked after her three-year-old daughter, who continued to live with the appellants after her mother's death, and Shivraj had borne the entire hospital expenses of Rs.2,57,557/-.
“The aforesaid analysis of the testimony of prosecution witnesses gives rise to a reasonable apprehension against the correctness of the allegation of demand of dowry levelled by them belatedly and it does not inspire confidence.”
Turning to the dying declaration, the Court noted that the Magistrate had recorded it after satisfying himself that Ruby was fully conscious and fit to make a statement, which a doctor certified.
The Court found the opinion of PW-13 unworthy of reliance on three counts. He admitted in cross-examination that no written request for his opinion had been made, that he gave it orally to the investigating officer, and that he prepared no written report.
“A forensic medicine expert working in KGMU normally does not give his medical expert's opinion orally, on an oral request of an investigating officer, on the basis of oral information given by him and it gives rise to a serious doubt against the truthfulness of the statement of PW-13.”
Second, the opinion rested in part on a medico-legal examination report which was not on the record and which no prosecution witness said was ever prepared. Third, the inference that the deceased must have been sitting on the floor rested on the absence of burns below the waist and behind the legs, whereas the postmortem examination report recorded burns on the front and back of the chest, the front of the abdomen and all around both thighs, and the diagram of the body showed burns almost everywhere except the soles.
“The statement of PW-13 is merely an opinion and it cannot take precedence over the dying declaration and the testimony of the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination.”
The Court obserevd that the Trial Court had ignored the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, and observed that debris found in the wounds after a week in hospital indicated prima facie that they had not been cleaned properly, which could have been a factor causing the septicemia that killed the deceased.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants and the trial court had convicted them without a proper appreciation of the evidence, the Court allowed both appeals and set aside the judgment and order dated 30th October 2025. The appellants, who are in custody, were directed to be released on personal bonds ansd two sureties under Section 437-A CrPC, to hold good for six months.
Case Title: Amita Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. with Shivraj Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.