Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely on a Dying Declaration Shrouded in Doubt: Karnataka HC Sets Aside Life Sentence for Alleged Murder in Illicit Relationship Case

“Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Broken, Dying Declaration Unreliable”, Karnataka High Court setting aside the conviction and life sentence of a man accused of murdering a woman by setting her ablaze following a quarrel allegedly stemming from an illicit relationship. A division bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T acquitted the appellant, holding that the dying declaration lacked reliability, the circumstantial evidence was incomplete, and the prosecution failed to exclude every other hypothesis of innocence.

The Court ruled that the conviction under Section 302 IPC by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural on 27 August 2018, rested solely on unreliable dying declaration and insufficient circumstantial evidence, making the trial court’s findings legally unsustainable.

“Dying Declaration Must Be Wholly Reliable and Not Merely Recorded” – Court Finds No Proof of Mental Fitness, Deems Declaration Unsafe

The bench observed that the dying declaration (Ex.P7) was the sole basis of conviction, yet its admissibility and evidentiary value failed on multiple fronts. Though recorded by PW9 – Assistant Sub-Inspector Mohan Kumar and certified by PW10 – Dr. Priyadarshini N., the Court found fatal lapses in its preparation and surrounding circumstances.

“PW10 did not record vital parameters such as blood pressure, pulse rate or heart rate; she was not the treating doctor and did not verify the deceased’s mental and physical condition before certifying fitness to give the statement,” the Court noted.

Crucially, the Court pointed out that the deceased had sustained 80–85% burns including to her face and lips, and PWs.4 and 5, the mother and sister of the deceased, stated that she was unable to speak when they visited her, directly contradicting the prosecution’s assertion of a coherent and conscious declaration.

“A dying declaration must be voluntary, truthful, and recorded in the declarant’s fit mental and physical state. The Court cannot accept a document that raises substantial doubts regarding its authenticity and execution,” the bench emphasized.

“Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Incomplete; Last Seen Theory Not Established”

The High Court reiterated the settled principle that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain must be complete and point exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Here, the key links – motive, last seen, and direct connection to the act – were missing or broken.

• PWs.2 and 3, the neighbours of the deceased and supposedly last seen witnesses, categorically denied seeing the accused at the scene, stating they only saw the victim screaming in flames.
• The alleged motive – an illicit relationship opposed by the accused’s parents – was never substantiated. The prosecution did not examine the accused’s parents, and even the deceased’s own family did not support the prosecution version in material particulars.
• The investigation lacked depth: there was no recovery of call records, no proof of quarrel or presence of the accused at the time of incident, and no attempt to corroborate motive through neutral or documentary evidence.

“Conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or assumptions. Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, especially where the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence,” the Court held.

Trial Court Criticised for Sole Reliance on Dying Declaration Despite Serious Deficiencies

The High Court noted that the trial court gave undue weight to the dying declaration and failed to scrutinize its legality and credibility in light of the Supreme Court’s guidelines under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The bench referred to the Apex Court’s judgment in Jayamma & Another v. State of Karnataka, reiterating that:

“A conviction based solely on a dying declaration must be based on a declaration which is wholly reliable. Where doubts arise regarding the maker’s physical and mental fitness, or manner of recording, such declaration cannot form the sole basis for conviction.”

Here, not only was the doctor’s certification perfunctory, but also the dying declaration was not recorded in a question-answer format, making it uncertain whether the statement reflected the actual words of the deceased or a narrative reconstruction.

 “Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Summing up its findings, the High Court concluded that the prosecution’s case lacked the evidentiary foundation to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC:

“The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiencies, creating significant gaps. Due to such missing links, the finding of guilt cannot be recorded.”

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and directed:

• Acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC;
• Immediate release if not required in any other case;
• Order of the trial court regarding disposal of properties to remain intact.

A Reminder on the Importance of Procedural Safeguards in Dying Declarations and Circumstantial Evidence

This judgment reinforces a critical procedural principle in criminal law: that convictions must rest on clear, cogent, and complete evidence, especially when based solely on circumstantial links or dying declarations. Where material contradictions, investigative lapses, and doubtful declarations exist, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

The case is a textbook example of the dangers of placing uncritical reliance on dying declarations, especially when the prosecution fails to prove mental and physical fitness, or does not corroborate motive or presence through other evidence.

Date of Decision: 14 January 2026