A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant thus set aside the trial court's judgment that had sentenced the 5 accused to life imprisonment.

The Court noted that the dying declaration, which the prosecution relied heavily on as the sole basis of implicating the accused, made "broad and sweeping allegations" without assigning particular roles to them.

"It appears that the intent of the dying declaration is more to wreak vengeance on the husband and his family than to state the truth", the Bench observed while finding it unreliable.

Case in brief

According to the prosecution's case, the victim was constantly harassed and threatened with murder after her family could not meet her in-laws' demands for Rs. 1 lakh and a motorcycle.

The informant (mother of the deceased) lodged the FIR alleging that on February 19, 2017, the brother-in-law of the victim flung her to the ground and her husband's sisters, Mahnaz and Shehnaz, bound her hands.

Thereafter, her husband poured the kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. The FIR further claimed that the accused then locked the door from outside and left the victim to burn. She was rushed to the hospital later in order to create an alibi for themselves.

During the trial, all material witnesses of fact, including the deceased's mother/informant, father, and brother, repudiated the prosecution's case in their testimony before the trial court and were declared hostile.

Despite this, the trial court convicted the accused persons solely on the basis of the first dying declaration recorded by a Naib Tehsildar.

Challenging their conviction, the accused persons moved the High Court, inter alia, pointing out that the prosecution had suppressed a second dying declaration made by the deceased before the Investigating Officer.

Therefore, it was contended that an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the prosecution for suppressing the material evidence since it would have been adverse to the prosecution.

High Court's observations

Finding substance in the arguments of the accused, the High Court strongly faulted the prosecution for suppressing the second dying declaration -and not producing it as evidence before the trial court.

"No cogent reason has been given by the prosecution regarding the failure to produce the said statement. The aforesaid dying declaration was a material piece of evidence, and the prosecution cannot escape the consequences of suppressing the same", the Court observed.

The bench added that the pre-conditions for drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution as contemplated under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act were fully satisfied in the present case.

The High Court also highlighted a fatal flaw in the prosecution's medical evidence. Noting that the State failed to produce the victim's bedhead ticket, treatment details, or the doctors who attended to her at the hospital, the Court held that the preconditions for treating a statement as a dying declaration were absent.

"In absence of evidence pertaining to the gravity of the victim's medical condition this Court is unable to find whether the injuries were fatal enough to foreclose possibilities of survival and grave enough to induce the expectation of imminent death", the Bench observed.

The Court also highlighted that the contents of the dying declaration alleging harassment by the in-laws were clearly contradicted by the testimonies of all material prosecution witnesses of fact (P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.5).

The Court further examined the attending circumstances, noting that the hostile family members had testified that the deceased was a person of “extreme temperamental behaviour and was prone to suicidal tendencies”.

Crucially, the Court observed the exculpatory conduct of the husband, Khalid, who had rushed his wife to the hospital for urgent medical treatment and promptly informed her family.

"Conduct of the husband of the deceased-Khalid as well his family members appears to be bonafide", the Court recorded.

Against this backdrop, holding that the trial court's judgment was "perverse and contrary to the evidence in the record", the High Court acquitted Mahnaz, Jayara @ Shayara Bano, Rashid, Khalid, and Shabnam of all charges, including the alternative charges of dowry death.