A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction

“When Witnesses Turn Hostile and Investigation Falters, Benefit of Doubt Must Prevail” On 16 March 2026, the Calcutta High Court (Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay) overturning a conviction under Section 302 IPC that was based primarily on a dying declaration.

The Court held that a dying declaration must be free from suspicion and inspire full confidence, and where it is surrounded by procedural irregularities, inconsistencies, and lack of corroboration, it cannot form the sole basis of conviction. The appellant was acquitted, with the Court highlighting serious lapses in investigation and collapse of the prosecution case due to hostile witnesses.

“Hostile Witnesses and Unrecorded Statements Raise Serious Doubts About Prosecution Story”

Background of the Case

The prosecution alleged that the appellant set his wife on fire by pouring kerosene, leading to her death after several days. Charges were framed under Sections 498A, 304B, and 302 IPC.

However, during trial, a dramatic shift occurred. The father, brother, relatives, and neighbors of the victim all turned hostile, uniformly stating that the victim sustained burn injuries accidentally while cooking and that her marital life was cordial.

The Court found this reversal deeply significant, observing:

“It is extremely unnatural that… all prosecution witnesses… would resile… unless they were compelled… Such is the only possible inference.”

Crucially, the Investigating Officer failed to record statements under Section 164 CrPC, which the Court termed a serious and not merely procedural lapse, casting doubt on the credibility of earlier police statements.

“Dying Declaration Must Inspire Confidence—Not Suspicion”

Legal Issues and Court’s Observations

The conviction rested almost entirely on a dying declaration recorded by a doctor, implicating the husband. The High Court subjected this declaration to strict scrutiny and found multiple defects:

“Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.”

The Court noted alarming irregularities:

The declaration was not recorded in question-answer form, not read over to the victim, and recorded without informing police. The victim survived for 10 days, yet no attempt was made to have her statement recorded before a Magistrate, which would have carried greater evidentiary value.

Further, the doctor admitted:

“He is unable to recall whether he has read out and explained the contents…”

The Court found this fatal, emphasizing:

“A dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate… stands on a much higher footing.”

“Investigation Marked by ‘Unwanted Activism’ and Procedural Lapses”

Details of the Judgment

The Court sharply criticized the manner in which the dying declaration was recorded, remarking:

“There appears an unwanted activism… to record the dying declaration… rather than her treatment.”

It also highlighted multiple unexplained circumstances:

The doctor acted without police presence, the nurse witness was not examined properly, and the statement was recorded in haste despite no urgency, as the victim survived for days.

Additionally, the prosecution story suffered from fundamental contradictions:

“On one hand… murder… on the other… a case of suicide… This contradiction should have been noticed…”

Medical evidence further weakened the case, as the doctor could not determine whether burns were homicidal or suicidal, adding to reasonable doubt.

The Court also noted glaring gaps:

“As to how the neighbors had unlocked the said door… has remained unexplained.”

Seizure witnesses also failed to support the prosecution, admitting ignorance of the contents of seizure lists.

“Conviction Cannot Rest on Doubt—Benefit Must Go to the Accused”

In conclusion, the Court held:

“The finding of guilt… solely based on the dying declaration is not sustainable…”

The cumulative effect of hostile witnesses, unreliable dying declaration, contradictory prosecution case, and flawed investigation rendered the conviction unsafe.

The Court accordingly:

Set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, allowed the appeal, and directed that the appellant be released, subject to Section 437 CrPC conditions.

Date of Decision: 16/03/2026