Appellate Court Can Acquit Non-Appealing Accused If Prosecution Evidence Lacks Credibility: Supreme Court

"The absence of an appeal by the accused-respondent does not, by itself, denude this Court of its appellate jurisdiction. In exercise of powers under Section 386 of the CrPC... the appellate Court is vested with the power to examine the correctness of the findings and sentence recorded by the Court below and to reverse, alter or affirm the same, as the interests of justice may require." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that an appellate court exercising powers under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is fully empowered to suo motu acquit a non-appealing accused where the prosecution evidence is found to be unconvincing and lacking in credibility.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that the lack of an appeal by a convict does not prevent an appellate court from reversing an unsustainable conviction, noting that "if, for compelling and inevitable reasons... an accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount to denial of access to justice to such accused."

The trial court had originally convicted the respondent-husband under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka partly allowed his appeal by acquitting him of charges under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, but convicted him under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment. Aggrieved by the acquittal under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, the State of Karnataka preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, while the respondent did not file any cross-appeal.

The primary questions before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court was justified in disbelieving the dying declarations indicting the husband in view of contradictory medical records, whether a statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could be drawn against him, and whether the Supreme Court could invoke Section 386 CrPC to acquit a non-appealing accused under Section 306 IPC.

Dying Declaration Must Be Tested Against Surrounding Circumstances

The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that a dying declaration, if found wholly reliable, can form the sole foundation of a conviction without requiring independent corroboration. The bench, however, emphasized that the evidentiary acceptability of any dying declaration invariably hinges upon the surrounding factual circumstances established on record.

In the present case, the victim was admitted to the hospital with 94% burn injuries, and the initial wound certificate recorded that the injuries were sustained due to the burst of a kerosene stove. The bench noted that the prosecution's case rested upon two subsequent dying declarations alleging that the accused poured kerosene and set her ablaze, creating an irreconcilable cleavage with the initial hospital records.

Unexplained Delay In Lodging FIR Weakens Dying Declaration

The Court underscored that the deceased’s sister was present when the victim was initially hospitalized and claimed to have been informed by the deceased that her husband had set her on fire. Despite this alleged contemporaneous disclosure, no First Information Report was registered until 4:30 pm on the subsequent day, entailing an unexplained delay of over eighteen hours.

The bench observed that such an inordinate delay, coupled with the initial hospital entry indicating an accidental stove burst, cast serious doubt over the veracity and authenticity of the subsequent dying declarations.

"When we test the dying declaration with the surrounding circumstances of the victim being admitted in the hospital as a case of accident and, thereafter, there being a delay of over 18 hours in lodging the FIR, a serious doubt arises about the veracity of the dying declaration."

Withholding Of Treatment Records Precludes Assessment Of Mental Fitness

The Court took strong exception to the prosecution's failure to produce the medical treatment charts and medication administration records of the deceased while she was undergoing treatment for 94% burns. While the examining doctor asserted that the patient was conscious, he conceded in cross-examination that patients with extensive burn trauma are routinely administered heavy painkillers and sedatives.

The bench remarked that the prosecution had withheld vital medical sheets that would have revealed whether the victim was under sedation and capable of making a coherent statement. Consequently, the bench found no reason to overturn the High Court’s refusal to act on the dying declarations in an appeal against acquittal.

"In our view, the presumption would arise not by merely proving that the deceased died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage but also by proving that she was subjected to harassment soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry."

Section 113B Evidence Act Requires Proof Of Harassment Soon Before Death

Addressing the State's argument that a presumption of dowry death arose under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the bench clarified that the statutory presumption does not get triggered automatically merely upon showing an unnatural death within seven years of marriage. The prosecution carries the indispensable legal burden of establishing that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her demise.

Relying on the precedent in Shoor Singh & Another v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), the Court held that omnibus and vague allegations regarding financial demands without specific dates, times, and particulars are insufficient to sustain a charge under Section 498A IPC or invoke Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

Appellate Powers Under Section 386 CrPC Extend To Non-Appealing Accused

The bench then addressed whether the respondent could be acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC despite not having filed an appeal against that portion of the High Court's judgment. Referring to Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana (2025) and State of Assam v. Moinul Haque @ Monu, the bench affirmed that the absence of a formal appeal does not denude an appellate court of its jurisdiction under Section 386 CrPC (corresponding to Section 427 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

The Court held that an appellate court possesses wide statutory powers to examine findings and sentences to prevent miscarriages of justice, especially when the prosecution evidence is found to be unreliable and fails to establish an unbroken chain of guilt.

Mere Unhappiness Over Pledging Ornaments Cannot Sustain Abetment Of Suicide

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had already acquitted the respondent under Section 498A IPC due to a lack of evidence regarding dowry harassment. The bench held that the mere circumstance that the deceased was reportedly unhappy regarding the pledging of her ornaments by the husband could not legitimately sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

Finding no cogent material on record to demonstrate instigation or abetment, the Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 386 CrPC to suo motu overturn the conviction under Section 306 IPC and ordered the respondent's immediate release.

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and acquitted the respondent of the remaining charge under Section 306 IPC. The decision reaffirms the duty of appellate courts to extend relief to non-appealing convicts when prosecution evidence is fundamentally flawed and clarifies the stringent pre-requisites for invoking dowry presumptions.

Date of Decision: September 23, 2026