Omission To Put Dying Declaration To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Makes It Inadmissible, But Doesn't Demolish Entire Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court

"The law is well settled that exclusion of one piece of evidence does not necessarily demolish the prosecution case, if other reliable and cogent evidence remains available." Delhi High Court, in a significant, held that a dying declaration must be kept out of consideration if its incriminating contents are not specifically put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

A bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that while such an omission vitiates the admissibility of the dying declaration, it does not automatically result in an acquittal if the remaining circumstantial and oral evidence independently establishes the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The victim was married to Nanak Chand in April 2000 and subsequently died from 100% burn injuries sustained at her matrimonial home in October 2002. The trial court convicted the husband under Section 498-A IPC and the mother-in-law under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, relying heavily on a dying declaration where the victim alleged her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her. The accused preferred the present appeals challenging their convictions, primarily arguing that the vital allegations in the dying declaration were never put to them during the trial.

The primary question before the court was whether the failure to confront the accused with the exact contents of the dying declaration under Section 313 CrPC caused severe prejudice, thereby rendering the evidence inadmissible. The court was also called upon to determine whether the conviction for dowry death could still be sustained based on independent circumstantial evidence after excluding the dying declaration.

Section 313 CrPC Not An Empty Formality

The High Court heavily scrutinized the manner in which the trial court recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. The bench noted that the most crucial piece of evidence—the allegation that the mother-in-law poured kerosene and set the victim on fire—was never specifically brought to her attention. The court stressed that the object of Section 313 CrPC is to afford the accused a fair and meaningful opportunity to explain every material circumstance appearing in evidence against them.

Prejudice Caused By Defective Examination

Emphasizing the importance of this procedural safeguard, the bench observed that the failure to confront an illiterate accused with such a fundamental circumstance assumes greater significance. The bench held that in the absence of any opportunity to explain this vital circumstance, clear prejudice had been caused to the appellants. Consequently, the court ruled that notwithstanding the evidentiary value generally attached to a dying declaration, it could not be safely relied upon to sustain the conviction in this case.

"Recording of a statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality but a valuable procedural safeguard intended to ensure fairness in criminal trials and to protect the rights of the accused."

Excluding One Piece Of Evidence Not Fatal

Despite excluding the dying declaration, the High Court clarified that the prosecution's case did not automatically collapse. Relying on Supreme Court precedents like Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, Raj Kumar v. State, and Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, the bench held that the remaining evidence on record must be independently examined. The court observed that if a clear picture emerges by piecing together all other evidence indicating guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused can still be held criminally liable.

Consistent Testimonies Of Dowry Cruelty

Turning to the independent evidence, the High Court placed reliance on the testimonies of the deceased's father and uncle. The bench found that their depositions established a clear pattern of continuous harassment and specific demands for a sum of Rs. 50,000 or a 100-square-yard plot. The court rejected the defence's argument that these allegations were vague, noting that the deceased had been residing at her parental home for months and was brought back just days before the incident following a formal panchayat intervention.

Unnatural Conduct And Forensic Evidence

The court also drew attention to the highly unnatural conduct of the mother-in-law immediately after the incident. Despite the victim suffering severe burn injuries, the accused did not attempt to call an ambulance or assist in shifting her to the hospital. Instead, she and her son fled the scene and were later apprehended at the Badarpur border by the police. The bench highlighted this abscondence as a significant incriminating circumstance when read conjointly with the recovery of forensic evidence.

"More significantly, the presence of burnt rubber gloves in the kitchen appears highly unnatural and constitutes a telling circumstance, suggesting an attempt by the perpetrator to avoid direct contact with kerosene, while committing the offence."

Absence Of Prior Complaints Is Not Fatal

Addressing the defence's contention regarding the lack of prior police complaints, the High Court observed that such an absence is not fatal to the prosecution's case. The bench noted that in the prevailing social conditions, parents of a married woman often refrain from initiating criminal proceedings at the first instance, hoping for an amicable resolution to protect the marital relationship. The court found this explanation to be natural, plausible, and consistent with ordinary human conduct.

The High Court concluded that even after excluding the dying declaration, sufficient material remained on record to sustain the findings regarding dowry-related cruelty and unnatural death within seven years of marriage. Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the bench dismissed the appeals and directed the appellants to surrender within two weeks to serve their remaining sentences.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2026