Dowry Death | Conviction Cannot Rest on Omnibus Accusations Without Corroborative Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Dying Declaration Alone Held Insufficient for Conviction - Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that reliance on an uncorroborated dying declaration with omnibus allegations was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court also noted significant doubts about the deceased’s fitness to make a coherent statement, given her 97% burn injuries.

The case stemmed from an incident on March 15, 2013, in which the deceased, Yelamanchili Govindamma, was allegedly set on fire by her husband (Accused No. 1) and mother-in-law (Accused No. 2) over dowry disputes. She suffered severe burn injuries and succumbed on March 19, 2013. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC based on a dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, despite all key prosecution witnesses turning hostile. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration (Ex.P8) was unreliable, uncorroborated, and made under suspicious circumstances.

The High Court scrutinized the dying declaration (Ex.P8), in which the deceased accused the appellants of pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. However, the Court noted several infirmities:

The deceased had sustained 97% burns and was initially declared unconscious by the attending doctor.

The Magistrate recorded the declaration approximately one hour later, based on a new endorsement of fitness by the doctor. The Court found it doubtful that the deceased could regain consciousness and coherently narrate events within such a short timeframe.

The dying declaration attributed general and vague allegations to both accused, without specifying individual acts.

Citing Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, the Court reiterated:

"It is unsafe to record a conviction on the basis of a dying declaration alone when suspicion is raised regarding its correctness. In such cases, corroborative evidence is necessary."

The Court observed that all key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s mother (P.W.1), turned hostile. There was no other evidence to support the dying declaration. Even the physical evidence, such as the kerosene tin and burnt clothes, did not conclusively point to the appellants’ involvement.

Referring to Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court emphasized that corroborative evidence is crucial when the dying declaration raises doubts or lacks specificity.

The Court underscored the principle that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of specific allegations in the dying declaration and the lack of corroborative evidence meant that the prosecution failed to meet this standard. The Court noted:

“Omnibus allegations that both accused poured kerosene and set the deceased on fire are contrary to natural human behavior. Such generalized statements, unsupported by other evidence, cannot form the basis of a conviction.”

The High Court questioned the medical endorsement of the deceased’s fitness at the time of recording the dying declaration. The Court found it improbable that a person with 97% burns, initially declared unconscious, could recover sufficiently to make a coherent and reliable statement within a short span of time.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and life sentence of the appellants under Section 302 IPC. The appellants were acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court ordered that any fine amounts paid by the appellants be refunded.

“It is unsafe to record a conviction solely on the basis of a dying declaration when significant doubts exist regarding its reliability and no corroborative evidence supports it. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.”

The appellants, who were out on bail, were directed to complete necessary formalities before the authorities.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Dying Declarations Require Corroboration in Suspicious Circumstances: Courts must exercise caution when relying solely on a dying declaration, especially when it is vague or lacks specificity.

Fitness to Make a Declaration Must Be Established Beyond Doubt: Medical endorsements must inspire confidence, particularly in cases involving severe injuries.

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases: The burden is on the prosecution to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and failure to do so will result in acquittal.Omnibus Allegations Are Insufficient: Generalized accusations without attribution of specific overt acts weaken the probative value of a dying declaration.

Date of Decision: December 10, 2024