Absence of Doctor's Certification on Victim's Mental Fitness Makes Dying Declaration Unreliable: Allahabad High Court Acquits Appellants in Dowry Death Case

On September 24, 2024, the Allahabad High Court, in Babli and Others vs. State of U.P., overturned the conviction of five appellants who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for dowry-related death charges. The court found serious inconsistencies in the reliability of the victim's dying declaration, citing procedural lapses and the absence of key witnesses. As a result, all appellants were acquitted, and their sentences were set aside.

The case stemmed from the death of Neelam, who succumbed to severe burn injuries in July 2014, with allegations that her in-laws and her husband had burned her alive due to dowry demands. The trial court had convicted the accused under Sections 302/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment based primarily on a disputed dying declaration made by the victim, alleging dowry harassment and her subsequent burning.

The appellants challenged the conviction, raising issues over the reliability of the dying declaration, lack of medical certification of the victim's mental fitness, and failure to examine key witnesses during the trial.

The primary legal questions before the court revolved around:

The reliability of the dying declaration given the absence of a doctor’s certification confirming the victim’s mental fitness at the time of making the statement.

Whether the evidence provided by the prosecution, including witness testimony and proof of dowry demands, was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Procedural errors, including the failure to examine crucial witnesses such as the attending doctor and the victim’s sister-in-law.

The court extensively reviewed the procedural issues in recording the dying declaration, as well as contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The court observed that:

"PW-4, who recorded the dying declaration, admitted he did not ask preliminary questions to assess whether the victim was in a fit mental state to make the statement. Moreover, the doctor’s certification of her fitness was not obtained on the declaration itself" [Paras 28-32].

Furthermore, the court noted that none of the key witnesses, including the victim’s family members (father, brother, and mother), supported the allegations of dowry demands or harassment, and the prosecution had failed to prove the accused’s motive.

The court found several flaws in the prosecution's case, particularly concerning the dying declaration. The following points were highlighted:

Lack of Medical Certification: The doctor’s certification of the victim’s fitness was recorded in a separate medical note, not on the dying declaration itself, raising serious doubts about its reliability.

Failure to Examine Key Witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine the attending doctor (Dr. Sudipta) who treated the victim and gave the fitness certificate. The court emphasized that the doctor’s testimony would have been critical in determining whether the victim was in a fit condition to make a statement.

Hostile Witnesses: Key family members, including the victim's father, brother, and mother, turned hostile during the trial, denying any dowry demands or harassment by the accused. The brother of the deceased even testified that the death was accidental, caused by a kerosene stove explosion while the victim was cooking.

Contradictions in Witness Statements: The court observed contradictions between the dying declaration and witness statements, particularly regarding the circumstances of the incident. The victim’s brother testified that the incident was an accidental fire, contradicting the prosecution’s claim of intentional burning due to dowry demands.

Lack of Corroborative Evidence: Besides the unreliable dying declaration, there was no corroborative evidence to support the prosecution’s claims of dowry harassment or intentional murder. The court concluded that the conviction could not be sustained on the basis of the dying declaration alone, especially when it was marred by procedural lapses.

The Allahabad High Court acquitted all the appellants, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The dying declaration, riddled with inconsistencies and procedural errors, was deemed unreliable. Additionally, the failure to examine key witnesses and the lack of corroborative evidence regarding dowry demands resulted in the court granting the benefit of doubt to the appellants.

Date of Decision: September 24, 2024

Babli and 2 Others vs. State of U.P.