100% Burns, No Pulse, No Blood Pressure — Dying Declaration Totally Unreliable: Supreme Court Refuses to Revive Murder Conviction in Madhya Pradesh Case

“When Two Views Are Possible, Appellate Court Should Not Disturb Acquittal” — Supreme Court of India upheld the acquittal of a man accused of setting a young woman ablaze allegedly over a grudge. The Court found that the dying declaration — the only surviving pillar of the prosecution’s case — was “totally unreliable” given the victim’s “extremely poor” medical condition and serious procedural lapses.

Apex Court Backs High Court’s Doubts Over Dying Declaration

The case arose from an incident on 10 March 2003 in Morena district, where Badami Bai suffered fatal burn injuries allegedly inflicted by Ramveer Singh. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 449 IPC, relying on a written dying declaration recorded by a Naib Tehsildar.

However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in June 2010, overturned the conviction, citing grave doubts about the reliability of the statement. The Supreme Court, noting that “material contradictions and inherent improbabilities” pervaded the prosecution’s case, dismissed the State’s appeal.

A Murder Charge Born of Old Enmity

According to the prosecution, Ramveer Singh entered the victim’s house with a container of kerosene, poured it over her, and set her on fire. The alleged motive was revenge: just twelve days earlier, his son had been accused of raping the victim.

The first report — a dehati nalishi given by the victim’s grandmother, Poona Bai — named Ramveer Singh as the assailant. The victim, gravely injured, was rushed to the district hospital, where her supposed dying declaration (Ex. P-13) was recorded. She died the same evening around 8:30 pm.

Dying Declaration Recorded in a Cloud of Doubt

The trial court itself had “doubted the presence of Poona Bai (PW-10) at the place of incident” and rejected her claim of being an eyewitness. Yet it convicted Ramveer Singh solely on the dying declaration.

The High Court dismantled this foundation, observing that the victim had 100% burns, and as Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW-13) admitted, “neither the pulse nor the blood pressure… were measurable” when the statement was recorded. The Naib Tehsildar (PW-8) acknowledged that the victim’s “voice was very feeble and not clear at all,” and both he and the doctor “found it difficult to decipher the dialect” she spoke in.

The court was also troubled by the testimony of Mango Bai (PW-12), who admitted that she and Poona Bai “told the concerned officer on behalf of the victim as to how the incident had taken place.”

Procedural Lapses and Contradictions

The timeline itself strained belief. The victim was admitted at 7:25 pm, the dehati nalishi was recorded thereafter, and she died at 8:30 pm. The requisition for recording the dying declaration appeared suspect, given the narrow time window.

The High Court also noted an identity problem — “there were several persons having the name Ramveer,” casting doubt on whether the accused in court was the same man named by the victim. Further, an earlier report allegedly taken from Poona Bai at the village was “suppressed by the prosecution,” undermining credibility.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning: No Case for Interference in Acquittal

Endorsing the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court held:

“The very factum of recording of the dying declaration (Ex. P-13) comes under a grave doubt making it totally unreliable… The prosecution case is full of material contradictions and inherent improbabilities.”

Reiterating the settled principle, the Bench observed:

“Where two views are possible — one consistent with acquittal and the other holding the accused guilty — the appellate court should refuse to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.”

Finding the High Court’s view “neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence,” the Court dismissed the State’s appeal.

A Reminder of the High Bar for Overturning Acquittals

This ruling reinforces that a dying declaration can form the basis for conviction only when it is free from suspicion and inspires full confidence. Where the medical condition of the declarant, procedural irregularities, and possible external influence cast doubt, the courts will not permit it to stand as the sole evidence of guilt.

Date of Decision: 30 July 2025