Dying Declaration Cannot Form Sole Basis Of Conviction If Inconsistent With Medical Evidence & Surrounding Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Though as per the law settled, the dying declaration does not need any corroboration, however, the Court must exercise the closest circumspection and caution in case if there is any doubt or suspicion in the dying declaration, even if, it is recorded by the Magistrate." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 16, 2026, held that a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained solely on a dying declaration when the statement is clouded by suspicion and directly contradicts medical evidence.

Setting aside the conviction and life sentence of a husband accused of setting his wife ablaze, a Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Puja Chopra observed that although a dying declaration requires no corroboration under settled law, "the Court must exercise the closest circumspection and caution in case if there is any doubt or suspicion in the dying declaration, even if, it is recorded by the Magistrate."

The case originated from an incident where the deceased sustained burn injuries and made a statement before a Judicial Magistrate First Class alleging that her husband sprinkled kerosene on her from behind and ignited the fire. After remaining hospitalized for several weeks, the victim left against medical advice and eventually succumbed to septicemic shock at a civil hospital, leading the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to convict the husband under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated March 6, 2014, and the order of sentence dated March 7, 2014, the husband preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court.

The primary question before the Court was whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be rested entirely upon a dying declaration when the physical pattern of burn injuries contradicts the alleged mode of assault. The Bench was also called upon to determine whether the prosecution proved homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt when contemporaneous medical records and testimonies of the deceased’s parents indicated suicide.

Court Outlines Standard For Scrutinising Dying Declarations

Addressing the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, the High Court reiterated that while corroboration is not an absolute rule of law or prudence, judicial caution is mandatory whenever suspicion arises. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajendra vs. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Bench underscored that courts must ensure that the statement is not the product of prompting, tutoring, or imagination.

The Bench highlighted that the formal recording of a dying declaration by a Magistrate does not insulate it from comprehensive judicial scrutiny if the remaining evidence on record tells a different story.

Conflict Between Allegation And Medical Evidence Diminishes Credibility

"The appellant was alleged to have poured kerosene oil on the back side of the deceased, whereas, the injuries suffered to the deceased were primarily on the front side of the body."

Upon examining the medico-legal report (MLR) and post-mortem examination, the Bench found a direct variance between the deceased’s declaration and the physical injuries. While the victim claimed that the appellant poured kerosene from behind, the pictorial diagram and medical records revealed that the primary burn injuries—covering 50 to 60 percent of the body—were concentrated on the front side, including her chest, abdomen, face, and scalp.

The Court observed that the initial history recorded in the MLR at Dayanand Medical College & Hospital expressly referenced suicidal burns following a domestic quarrel. The medical evidence and burn patterns fundamentally weakened the prosecution's theory that kerosene had been poured from behind.

Deceased's Parents Disprove Motive And Support Suicide Defence - Testimonies Of Parents Demolish Prosecution Narrative

The Court placed substantial weight on the depositions of the victim’s own parents, which completely undermined the prosecution's version. The father of the deceased, examined as PW-1, admitted in his cross-examination that the couple lived peacefully without complaint and conceded that his daughter had told him that the appellant was not present inside the house when she caught fire.

Furthermore, the mother of the deceased stepped into the witness box as a defence witness (DW-1) and categorically stated that the marital life of the couple was cordial. She testified that her daughter orally revealed having poured kerosene on herself, an admission that aligned with the hospital records identifying her as the relative who brought the patient with an alleged history of suicidal burns.

Accused Extinguishing Fire Negates Intention Under Section 302 IPC

The Bench took critical note of the undisputed fact that the appellant himself attempted to extinguish the flames after the victim caught fire. The Court observed that the conduct of the accused in trying to douse the fire, coupled with the complete lack of motive established by the prosecution, raised reasonable doubt regarding any murderous intent.

Drawing support from the Supreme Court decision in Jupudi Suresh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2026), the Court observed that where medical evidence indicates self-dousing, such as burn injuries extending to the scalp, and the dying declaration is rendered suspicious by lack of corroboration and absence of motive, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

The Division Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the dying declaration remained wholly uncorroborated by medical evidence and stood demolished by the testimony of the deceased's parents. Extending the benefit of doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and ordered the appellant's immediate release.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2026