The Allahabad High Court last week affirmed the life sentence awarded to 2 women for killing a married woman by setting her ablaze while observing that a dying declaration which is voluntary, truthful and recorded when the maker is in a fit state of mind can, by itself, form the basis of conviction.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava thus dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Sarita Devi (sister-in-law of the deceased) and Malti Devi, challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicting them under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.

The Court held that although there were multiple statements attributed to the deceased, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate had no structural inconsistency or infirmity regarding the presence and the explicit roles attributed to the present appellants.

Case in brief

According to the prosecution's case, the deceased (Manisha Sharma) was married to one Kamlesh Sharma on July 3, 2003. The deceased was consistently harassed and faced ongoing disputes with her father-in-law (Vimal Sharma) at her matrimonial home.

On October 27, 2015, at her matrimonial residence, the accused persons, namely Vimal Sharma (father-in-law), Malti Devi, Shambhu Sharma (son of Malti Devi), and Sarita Devi (wife of Shambhu Sharma), brutally assaulted the deceased.

It was further alleged that with the common intention to eliminate her, the accused persons poured kerosene oil on her person and set her ablaze, inflicting severe burn injuries.

Neighbours and local residents rushed her to the hospital in a critical state, where her dying declaration was subsequently recorded by an Executive Magistrate on October 28, 2015, after the attending doctor certified that she was conscious and mentally fit to make a statement.

She was later shifted to a hospital in New Delhi, where she succumbed (on November 4, 2015) to septicaemic shock caused by infected ante-mortem flame burns involving about 80% of her body.

The trial court found the allegations against the two appellants and the father-in-law (not in appeal) were proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence, they were convicted. The remaining co-accused, however, was acquitted.

Challenging their convictions, the two appellants contended before the High Court that the prosecution case rested on multiple dying declarations that materially differed regarding the role attributed to each accused.

It was argued that such contradictions rendered the dying declarations unreliable and incapable of forming the sole basis of conviction.

It was their further case that the deceased had set herself on fire and that she had been tutored into falsely implicating the accused persons in the matter.

High Court's observations

Rejecting the submissions of the appellants, the Bench referred to Section 26 BSA, which corresponds to Section 32(1) Indian Evidence Act, to noted the jurisprudential foundation of a dying declaration rests on the maxim "Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri", meaning that a person will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth.

The Court observed:

"A dying declaration, if found to be voluntary, truthful, and free from any external tutoring or psychological promptings, can form the independent and sole basis of conviction without requiring any further corroboration".

Referring to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2023, the Bench reiterated that while multiple dying declarations must be scrutinised carefully, only material inconsistencies affecting the core of the prosecution case would undermine their credibility.

The Court noted that where inconsistencies exist, the declaration recorded by a Magistrate may safely be relied upon, provided it possesses the indispensable qualities of truthfulness and is free from suspicion.

Applying these principles to the present case, the High Court found that the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was made after obtaining a medical certificate regarding the victim's fitness.

The Magistrate also testified that the deceased's voice was clear and intelligible while recording her statement, whereas the attending doctor confirmed that she remained mentally fit both before and throughout the recording process.

The doctor also deposed that all relatives had been asked to leave the room before the statement was recorded, thereby eliminating the possibility of tutoring or influence.

The Bench therefore concluded that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer could not diminish the statutory value of the formal dying declaration merely because it attributed slightly different roles to the accused.

It observed that neither the IO nor the informant was competent to certify the victim's mental fitness at the time of those statements, unlike the Executive Magistrate's recording, which was supported by contemporaneous medical certification.

Any minor defect in investigation, the Court said, could not override "convincing, cohesive, and credible statutory evidence."

The Court also rejected the defence argument that the deceased's statement that she had been "struggling for twelve years" indicated a motive for self-immolation.

According to the Bench, the statement merely disclosed the background of continuous harassment and cruelty suffered by her and could not, "by no stretch of imagination", be interpreted as suggesting that she voluntarily set herself on fire.

The bench also found that the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case. The post-mortem doctor opined that the deceased died due to septicemic shock resulting from infected ante-mortem flame burns covering approximately 80% of her body.

The High Court noted that the defence itself did not dispute that death was caused by burn injuries and had only advanced a theory of self-immolation, which stood falsified by the evidence on record.

Dealing with the argument that neighbouring witnesses did not see the appellants at the spot, the Bench held that their absence when neighbours arrived was consistent with the prosecution case that the accused fled immediately after setting the deceased ablaze.

The Court found that this circumstance did not weaken the prosecution case or establish false implication.

Against this backdrop, finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the trial court's appreciation of the evidence, the High Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellants.

Case Title - Sarita Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment