She Had Nothing to Gain, No Reason to Lie: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction of Husband and Son Solely on Dying Declarations of Burnt Woman

“When a mother names her own son and husband in her dying moments, courts must listen — for those words are often the truest testimony” - In a judgment as harrowing as it is legally compelling, the Delhi High Court  upheld the conviction of Didar Singh and Maan Singh, a father-son duo, for the murder of Gian Kaur, their wife and mother respectively, who died of 100% burn injuries. Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav dismissed the challenge to their conviction and sentence, reaffirming the sanctity of dying declarations in Indian criminal law.

The Court anchored its findings on two consistent dying declarations made by the deceased—first to her treating doctor and later to the investigating officer—both of which blamed her husband and son for dousing her with kerosene and setting her ablaze. The Court declared these declarations not only admissible but sufficient in themselves to uphold the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, asserting that “there is no reason to doubt the dying words of a mother who had nothing to gain and everything to lose.”

“Dying Declarations Are Not Mere Statements, They Are Voices from the Brink of Death — and Courts Must Hear Them Clearly”

In dealing with the heart of the case—the evidentiary value of the deceased’s last words—the Court reiterated the long-standing principle of law that a dying declaration, if found to be truthful and voluntary, can form the sole basis for conviction. Citing the landmark decisions in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, and Atbir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Bench noted:

“The deceased, under severe pain and trauma, had repeated and recorded that she was unable to speak properly but then in the same breath she blamed her husband and son for the situation in which she had landed.”

Refusing to be swayed by technical arguments about the absence of a magistrate or formal recording procedures, the Court emphasized:

“It is not necessary that a dying declaration must be recorded by a magistrate... so long as the statement satisfies the requirement of being genuine and made in a fit state of mind, it can be accepted.”

Both the doctor and the police officer who recorded the declarations had certified the victim’s ability to speak, and the Court gave due weight to their testimonies.

“No Flame Without Fuel — No Container, No Matchstick, No Explanation: Scene Cleaning Points to a Cover-Up, Not Suicide”

Turning to the circumstantial evidence, the Court painted a vivid picture of the crime scene. The prosecution’s narrative was not only anchored in the dying declarations but also fortified by inexplicable conduct and suspicious omissions by the accused. The terrace where the victim allegedly caught fire had no trace of kerosene, no matchstick, no mattress or cot, and most importantly, no signs of accidental or suicidal burning.

The Court noted with concern: “If it was suicide, where are the instruments of death? A woman suffering 100% burns cannot carry back the matchbox or kerosene container after setting herself on fire.”

Equally damning was the husband’s failure to accompany his severely burned wife to the hospital, while the daughter and son did. The Court observed that the scene had been cleaned up before police arrival, and questioned:

“Why was there such urgency to clean the site? Why did the husband stay back? These unanswered questions speak volumes.”

“A Suicide Needs a Reason, This Woman Had None — But the Defence Has No Answers”

Rejecting the appellants’ theory that the deceased may have committed suicide, the Court called the argument “speculative, unsupported and contradicted by facts.” No evidence of domestic strife, mental illness, or any motive for suicide was presented. On the contrary, the victim was a mother sleeping alone on the terrace while the family remained inside the home. The Court found this arrangement itself unnatural and questioned:

“Why was the mother alone on the terrace while the rest of the family stayed inside? If the fire was accidental or suicidal, why was no one else present?”

The appellants also argued that the victim could not have spoken clearly due to facial burns and that she spoke only Afghani, which the doctor and police officer did not understand. But the Court dismissed these contentions as fabricated afterthoughts, finding no material evidence or expert testimony to support the claim.

“The deceased had no motive to fabricate a lie against her own son and husband. If anything, she had every reason to stay silent. That she chose to speak makes her words solemn and credible.”

“No Room for Doubt When the Dying Words Are Consistent, Clear, and Corroborated by Circumstances”

The Court went further to underline the consistency between the two dying declarations and their alignment with the surrounding facts:

“Both statements point to the same assailants. Both are free from contradiction or external influence. And both are reinforced by conduct that suggests concealment and complicity.”

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v. Public Prosecutor, the Court held: “It is not the plurality of dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case... If the dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable, and made in a fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration.”

The dying declarations were not found wanting on any legal parameter — they were timely, consistent, voluntary, and recorded by independent public officers in a hospital setting.

“Law Does Not Demand Perfection, Only Truth — And the Truth Here is Unmistakable”

While acknowledging that the police did not inform the Executive Magistrate to record the statement, and that no signature or thumb impression could be obtained due to the nature of the injuries, the Court held these were “procedural deficiencies that do not override substantive justice.”

The Bench stated: “There is no specific format for recording dying declaration... The truthfulness of the declaration demolishes the technical objections.”

The Court was unambiguous that even without corroboration, the dying declarations alone established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in light of incriminating circumstantial evidence and the complete absence of any plausible defence.

 “They Set Their Own Mother and Wife on Fire — the Law Cannot Look Away”

Rejecting the appeal in totality, the High Court concluded: “All the above coupled with the dying declaration make a foolproof case against Didar Singh and Maan Singh... The appeal fails and stands dismissed.”

The judgment stands as a testament to the power of a dying declaration in Indian criminal law and a stern reminder that even familial bonds, when betrayed, do not shield one from the weight of justice.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025