Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Burn Death Case, Raises Serious Doubts On Reliability Of Dying Declarations With 96% Burns

"A person who has suffered from 80 to 90% burns would be conscious and fit to give a statement... which raises a suspicion insofar as the dying declaration said to have been made by the victim who as per the post-mortem report suffered 96% injuries." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated August 11, 2026, set aside the concurrent conviction of a husband for the alleged murder of his wife, holding that multiple discrepancies in dying declarations and medical evidence regarding 96% burn injuries create insurmountable doubt in the prosecution case.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that when medical testimony casts serious aspersions on the physical capacity of a victim to make a coherent statement, the entire substratum of the prosecution rests on fragile ground.

The case arose from an unfortunate incident on May 6, 2013, where the appellant's wife suffered fatal burn injuries inside their matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that the husband, habituated to alcohol, stole money kept by the deceased, leading to a quarrel where he poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Both the trial court and the High Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment based on dying declarations and the absence of an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The primary questions before the court were whether the dying declarations inspiring confidence could form the sole basis of conviction, and whether the prosecution successfully established homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt. The court was also called upon to determine the legal effect of hostile prosecution witnesses who turned up to support a theory of suicide.

Medical Testimony Casts Doubt - Court Examines Extent Of Burns

The bench meticulously analyzed the medical evidence, noting that the post-mortem certificate proved by PW11 indicated the deceased had sustained 96% burn injuries across her body. The court observed that burn injuries were present even over the scalp of the head, which is characteristic of self-immolation where a person douses themselves entirely with an accelerant. Although the doctor in cross-examination stated that a victim with 80% to 90% burns might be conscious, the court found it highly improbable that a 96% burn victim could endure the rigors of detailed statements.

Contradictions In Dying Declarations - Inconsistent Timings And Motives

The prosecution relied heavily on two dying declarations, but the court found glaring anomalies in their recording and execution. The first dying declaration, purportedly recorded by a Head Constable who passed away before trial, was produced merely by a Sub-Inspector without proper verification of signatures or timely registration. Furthermore, the FIR was registered more than fifteen hours after the alleged recording time, creating a fatal chasm in the prosecution's timeline.

"The dying declarations speak of death on different issues, but they have already been found to be not credible."

Hostile Relatives And Absence Of Motive - Testimony Under Section 161 Not Substantive Evidence

The prosecution's star witnesses—the sister, cousin, and mother of the deceased examined as PW1 to PW3—turned hostile during trial and deposed that the victim committed suicide due to severe stomach ailments. The High Court had brushed aside their testimony, assuming they were won over. The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of this approach, emphasizing that statements under Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be used for substantive conviction without proper confrontation through the Investigating Officer.

Benefit Of Doubt Extended To Accused

Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish even a single incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, the bench allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the concurrent judgments of the lower courts. The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Jupudi Suresh, be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other pending matter, effectively bringing closure to a decade-long criminal trial.

Date of Decision: 11 August 2026