A Dying Declaration Cannot Become a Substitute for Proof: Karnataka High Court Acquits Husband in Dowry Death Appeal

“When 90% Burns, Sedatives and No Written Medical Certification Cast Doubt, Conviction Cannot Stand”, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru delivered a reportable judgment setting aside a conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Justice G. Basavaraja allowed the appeal and acquitted the husband who had been sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for dowry death by the Trial Court in SC No.27/2011.

The Court held that where material witnesses have turned hostile, hospital records are withheld, inconsistencies remain unexplained, and the medical fitness of the deceased was not certified in writing, it would be unsafe to sustain a conviction solely on the basis of a dying declaration. Reaffirming the “best evidence rule” and the presumption of innocence, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused while directing compensation for the minor children of the deceased.

Allegations of Dowry Harassment and Death by Burns

The prosecution alleged that Sharada married the accused in April 2004 after dowry negotiations in which ₹51,000 and 49 grams of gold were allegedly paid. After about two years of marital life, the accused was said to have squandered the dowry and subjected her to cruelty, demanding additional dowry.

On 13 June 2010, following a quarrel, it was alleged that the accused poured kerosene on Sharada and set her ablaze. She suffered 85–90% burn injuries and died on 18 June 2010. A charge sheet was filed under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 323, 504, 498-A, 304B and 302 IPC.

The Trial Court convicted the accused only under Section 304B IPC, primarily relying upon two dying declarations marked as Exhibits P35 and P36. The husband challenged this conviction before the High Court under Section 374(2) CrPC.

“Medical Certification is a Rule of Prudence — But Court Must Be Satisfied About Fitness”

The central question before the High Court was whether a conviction for dowry death could be sustained solely on the dying declaration when serious doubts existed about the mental and physical condition of the deceased.

PW19, the doctor present during the recording of the dying declaration, admitted in cross-examination that “no written certificate was issued certifying the fitness of the deceased to give a statement.” He further admitted that the deceased had sustained “85–90% burn injuries” and was administered “painkillers, intravenous fluids, analgesics, sedatives and antibiotics.” The doctor conceded that a person with such extensive burns would be “suffering from severe pain,” and sedatives were administered accordingly.

Though medical certification is not an absolute legal requirement, the Court emphasized that the absence of written certification, coupled with 90% burns and heavy medication, created serious doubt about whether the deceased was in a fit and voluntary state of mind while giving the statement.

Adding to the doubt, the hospital case sheet and treatment records were not produced by the Investigating Officer to demonstrate the condition of the deceased at the time of recording the dying declaration.

“Best Available Evidence Must Be Brought Before the Court”

The High Court found further inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The time of admission to the hospital was unclear. Exhibit P37 recorded the time as 7:45 p.m., whereas another witness deposed that she was referred at 6:00 p.m. The MLC mentioned the history as “suicidal attempt” and did not name the accused.

A prosecution witness claimed that the deceased had called him between 6:00 and 6:15 p.m. stating that her husband had set her on fire. However, the prosecution failed to collect call detail records or produce evidence showing from which number the alleged call was made.

Crucially, most material witnesses, including the parents and relatives of the deceased, turned hostile. There was no independent corroboration establishing cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand “soon before her death,” a mandatory ingredient under Section 304B IPC.

Invoking the principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court observed that “an accused is considered to be an innocent until proven guilty and the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not on a mere preponderance of probabilities.”

Relying upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that “it is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the court to prove a fact or the points in issue.”

The withholding of hospital records and the presence of material contradictions, in the Court’s view, meant that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden beyond reasonable doubt.

Failure to Establish “Soon Before Death” Cruelty

The High Court underscored that Section 304B IPC requires proof that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” in connection with dowry demand. With the majority of witnesses turning hostile and no independent corroboration available, this foundational requirement was not established.

The Court found that the Trial Court had erred in convicting the accused solely on the basis of dying declarations which, in the circumstances of the case, did not inspire confidence.

Appeal Allowed, Acquittal Recorded — Yet Compensation Ordered

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17/18 August 2012. The accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 304B IPC.

At the same time, the Court directed the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Hassan, to award compensation to the two minor sons of the deceased within three months, in accordance with applicable legal provisions.

The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that while a truthful and voluntary dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, courts must exercise heightened scrutiny when surrounding circumstances raise doubt about mental fitness, voluntariness, and procedural integrity. Where superior evidence such as hospital records is withheld and material witnesses fail to support the case, conviction cannot rest on a fragile foundation.

In reaffirming that suspicion cannot substitute proof, the Karnataka High Court has once again emphasized that the standard in criminal law remains proof beyond reasonable doubt — not emotional inference or incomplete evidence.

Date of Decision: 26/02/2026