Where the Deceased Has Changed Her Stance, Conviction Cannot Rest on an Uncorroborated Dying Declaration: Supreme Court Acquits Husband in Wife’s Murder Case Introduction

A Dying Declaration Surrounded by Doubt Cannot Be Sole Basis for Conviction - In a landmark judgment delivered on March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of a man accused of murdering his wife by setting her on fire. The case, Suresh v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, centered around a dying declaration that was contradictory and uncorroborated. The Madras High Court had earlier upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court ruled that the dying declaration lacked credibility, stating:

“In cases where the deceased has been changing her stance, a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis for conviction in the absence of any other corroborative evidence.”

The appellant, Suresh, who had been serving a life sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC, was acquitted and ordered to be released from jail immediately.

On September 12, 2008, the wife of the appellant suffered severe burn injuries at their residence in Tuticorin and succumbed to her injuries after three weeks, on October 2, 2008. Initially, in her first two statements—one given to the police and another to the doctor—she said that she accidentally caught fire while cooking. However, on September 18, 2008, in a statement before the Judicial Magistrate, she changed her version and accused her husband of pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant, relying solely on this third statement, treating it as a dying declaration. The Madras High Court later upheld the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Examining the contradictions in the deceased’s statements, the Supreme Court stressed the need for caution when relying on a dying declaration. Citing Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576, the Court observed: "In cases involving multiple dying declarations that are contradictory, courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence and look for corroboration before arriving at a conclusion."

It found that the first two statements of the deceased, where she claimed an accidental fire, were completely different from her subsequent statement before the magistrate. The Court remarked: “When the deceased herself has given multiple contradictory versions, one of which exonerates the accused, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”

The Supreme Court found serious flaws in the prosecution’s case, pointing out that key pieces of evidence did not support the dying declaration.

The doctor who treated the deceased immediately after the incident did not detect the smell of kerosene on her body. The Court observed: “Normally, where death is caused by burning through kerosene, the smell of kerosene remains for several hours. Here, the absence of such smell raises serious doubts.”

Further, while the police claimed to have recovered a kerosene can and matchstick three days after the incident, the witnesses to the seizure turned hostile. The Court noted:

“When key witnesses do not support the prosecution’s case, and crucial evidence is introduced after an unexplained delay, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.”

The Court also pointed out that the post-mortem report showed no injuries that would indicate an assault before the fire, further weakening the prosecution’s version.

Prior Family Disputes and Possible Motive for False Implication

The Court took into account family disputes between the accused and the deceased’s family. It was revealed that two years before the incident, the appellant’s brother had filed a criminal case against the deceased’s father and brother, which led to their conviction. Highlighting the possibility of false implication, the Court remarked: “When the background of the case suggests deep-seated animosity between the two families, the possibility of a false implication cannot be ruled out.”

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and acquitted the appellant. The Court ruled: “Total reliance on the dying declaration in this case would be misplaced. The appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt.”

Ordering his immediate release from jail, the Court concluded: “In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Where the dying declaration itself is doubtful and not corroborated by independent evidence, the accused is entitled to acquittal.”

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that a dying declaration must be scrutinized carefully, especially when it contradicts earlier statements made by the deceased. The Supreme Court has once again emphasized that conviction cannot be based on suspicion or an uncorroborated statement, ensuring that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" remains paramount in criminal trials.

Date of Decision: March 4, 2025