A doubtful dying declaration cannot sustain conviction when surrounding evidence undermines its reliability.

The State appealed the respondents’ acquittal of charges under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising from the death of Maniben after she sustained burn injuries.

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute over mangoes, two accused restrained Maniben while a third poured kerosene on her and set her alight.

The prosecution case rested principally on a dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, which implicated the respondents.

The trial court acquitted them, and the High Court considered whether that acquittal should be reversed.

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC governs murder committed with common intention; Section 378 CrPC provides for an appeal against acquittal.

Under Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, a medical certificate of fitness is not an absolute prerequisite to accepting a dying declaration if the evidence otherwise establishes that the declarant was fit to make it.

Under Paniben v. State of Gujarat, a truthful and voluntary dying declaration may sustain a conviction without corroboration, but a suspicious or infirm declaration should not be relied upon without corroboration; the court must consider whether it resulted from tutoring or prompting.

Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh identifies relevant factors in assessing a declaration’s truthfulness, voluntariness, recording, consistency and possible influence.

On an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review the evidence, but must account for the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The Court accepted that the absence of a medical fitness opinion alone did not invalidate the declaration, but found that its reliability was undermined by the admitted interpolation in the answer to Question 6, the presence of a girl during recording, and evidence that Maniben had sustained burns while cooking.

The treating doctor testified that Maniben had not named an assailant when giving the incident history, while the post-mortem doctor accepted that the injuries could have been self-inflicted.

Although the medical record described the burns as homicidal, the Court assessed that entry alongside the other evidence and concluded that the declaration did not inspire sufficient confidence to be the sole basis for conviction.

Given these doubts and the double presumption of innocence following acquittal, the Court found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s view.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the acquittal dated 27 February 1998 was confirmed, and any bail and bail bonds were discharged.