Dying Declaration Establishing Accident Cannot Be Disbelieved Without Strong Evidence of Foul Play: Gujarat High Court Acquitted Husband

Gujarat High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the acquittal of three accused persons charged under Sections 498-A, 306, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, observing that the deceased's dying declaration, coupled with the lack of corroborative evidence of harassment or cruelty, confirmed the accidental nature of her death.

"Presumption of Innocence Strengthened on Acquittal: Appellate Interference Requires Evidence of Perversity"
The case arose from the death of Kantaben, who succumbed to burn injuries on April 16, 2002, four days after the incident. The prosecution alleged that Kantaben was mentally and physically harassed by her husband, Niranjan Kanji Chudasama, and her in-laws for being childless, ultimately driving her to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself ablaze.

The trial court acquitted the accused on January 31, 2008, citing insufficient evidence and relying on Kantaben’s dying declaration, where she unequivocally stated that the burns were caused by an accidental fire while preparing tea on a primus stove. Upholding the acquittal, the High Court emphasized:

"The presumption of innocence gets reinforced when the trial court acquits the accused. Unless the findings are perverse or illogical, appellate courts should not interfere merely because a different view is possible."

Citing Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), the court reiterated that acquittals should only be overturned when the trial court’s decision suffers from illegality, perversity, or gross misappreciation of evidence.

"Dying Declaration Carries Great Evidentiary Value in the Absence of Contradictions"
The High Court observed that Kantaben’s dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate in the presence of the treating Residential Medical Officer (RMO) at the Government Hospital in Veraval. Kantaben, fully conscious and fit to give a statement, categorically stated that her clothes caught fire while preparing tea on a primus stove and explicitly denied any harassment or mistreatment by her husband or in-laws.

The court noted: “A dying declaration, if recorded properly and corroborated by medical evidence, holds significant probative value. In this case, Kantaben’s dying declaration, corroborated by the panchnama and medical evidence, leaves no room for doubt that the incident was accidental.”

The panchnama (Exh. 28) of the place of the incident confirmed the absence of any smell of kerosene or other evidence of foul play, further supporting the conclusion that the burns were accidental.

"Prior Complaints and Witness Testimonies Failed to Corroborate Allegations of Harassment"
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of Kantaben's brothers (P.W. 2, 3, and 4) and her mother (P.W. 6), who alleged that the deceased was harassed by her in-laws for being childless. However, the High Court observed that these claims were not corroborated by independent evidence or prior complaints.

Notably, in an earlier case (Criminal Case No. 167 of 2001), Kantaben and her parents had testified before a Judicial Magistrate, explicitly stating that there was no physical or mental harassment from her in-laws. The High Court remarked:

“Allegations of harassment must be substantiated by credible evidence. In the absence of corroboration and with the deceased’s prior statements affirming a harmonious relationship with her in-laws, the prosecution’s case fails to inspire confidence.”

The complainant’s assertion that Kantaben was thrown out of her matrimonial home was also uncorroborated. Moreover, the accused had taken the deceased to the hospital immediately after the incident, further negating the possibility of ill-treatment.

"Mens Rea and Proximity to Suicide Are Crucial for Abetment Under Section 306 IPC"
Addressing the charge under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), the High Court referred to the principles laid down in Prakash v. State of Maharashtra (2024) and S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010):

“To establish abetment, the prosecution must prove a direct or indirect act of incitement or provocation, coupled with mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without clear evidence of instigation, cannot sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC.”

In this case, the prosecution failed to demonstrate any act of instigation by the accused. The court observed that Kantaben’s dying declaration did not indicate any provocation or instigation, and the alleged harassment was neither proximate to nor causative of the incident.

"Accidental Death Properly Established – No Evidence of Foul Play or Harassment"
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court concluded: “The trial court meticulously analyzed the evidence, including the dying declaration, medical reports, and panchnama, and rightly concluded that the incident was accidental. The prosecution failed to establish cruelty, harassment, or abetment beyond reasonable doubt. The findings are legally sound and do not warrant appellate interference.”

The court upheld the trial court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused, reaffirming their acquittal.

Date of Judgment: January 9, 2025