A dying declaration naming strangers cannot sustain conviction without reliable identification.

Priti died from extensive burn injuries after being taken to hospital on 4 January 2017; her dying declaration, recorded that day, implicated her husband Anuj Kumar, her in-laws Rajeshwari and Brajpal, and Vipin and Madan.

The prosecution alleged that the accused had poured kerosene on Priti and set her on fire.

At trial, the witnesses of fact turned hostile, while the doctor and Naib Tehsildar gave evidence concerning Priti’s fitness to make, and the recording of, the dying declaration.

The Sessions Court convicted all five accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

On appeal, the High Court considered the reliability of the dying declaration and whether Vipin and Madan had been sufficiently identified.

Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC formed the basis of the convictions under appeal.

Applying the principles in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22, the Court stated that a dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction if, after close scrutiny, it is found truthful and reliable; corroboration is not an absolute requirement, though it is necessary where the declaration suffers from an infirmity.

The Court also applied the identification principles in Tukesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2025 SC 2666: where an eyewitness did not know an accused beforehand, identification in court is essential, and the absence of a test identification parade may render later identification vulnerable.

The Court accepted the dying declaration as reliable, noting that the doctor had certified Priti fit to make the statement and that the Naib Tehsildar had recorded it; the hostile testimony did not, by itself, require the declaration to be disregarded.

The Court distinguished the accused by identity: Rajeshwari, Brajpal and Anuj were known to the informant and other witnesses, and were known to Priti, so their identities were sufficiently established and the declaration implicated them.

By contrast, Vipin and Madan were not known to the informant or the witnesses; neither was identified in court, and no test identification parade had been held. Their names in the FIR or dying declaration, without further evidence fixing their identities, were insufficient to sustain conviction.

The appeal of Vipin and Madan (Criminal Appeal No. 1220 of 2019) was allowed; their convictions were set aside and they were acquitted. The Court directed that they be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.