Acquittal in Multiple Dying Declarations Case Where Inconsistent Versions and Investigative Lacunae Create Reasonable Doubt

The Appellant married the deceased, Kirti, in January 2011. On May 12, 2011, Kirti sustained 100% burn injuries in their residence and died on May 16, 2011

Two sets of dying declarations were recorded: the first set on May 13 suggested an accidental fire caused by a niranjan (lamp)

the second set on May 14 alleged the Appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, primarily relying on the second set of declarations and noting defects in the initial police investigation

The Appellant challenged the conviction, citing the inconsistent dying declarations and lack of corroborative evidence

1. Whether the prosecution proved the homicidal death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the first set of dying declarations (accidental) or the second set (homicidal) is reliable

3. Whether the Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the alleged defects in investigation

The Court applied Section 302 of the IPC regarding murder

Section 106 of the Evidence Act concerning the burden of proving facts within special knowledge.

if two versions are inconsistent, the Court must look for corroboration and ensure the statement is not the result of tutoring or prompting

Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that consistent multiple declarations strengthen the case, while inconsistency creates serious doubt

The High Court found the Trial Court's reliance on the second set of dying declarations flawed.

It noted that the prosecution initially concealed the first accidental dying declaration

While the prosecution alleged the first set was given under pressure, the Court observed that at the time of those statements, the Appellant was also hospitalized and relatives of the deceased had not yet arrived to provide a counter-narrative

Further, the Court found that the second set of declarations was recorded only after the father of the deceased complained

several "independent" witnesses (neighbours and doctors) who claimed to smell alcohol or kerosene only gave statements 18–23 months later, which the Court deemed as significant improvements/embellishments

The Court also rejected the motive of dowry because it was not part of the original police statements and Section 498-A was never invoked

The inconsistencies between the two sets of dying declarations, coupled with the long delay in recording witness statements and the lack of reliable corroboration, entitled the Appellant to the benefit of the doubt

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and life imprisonment sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the Appellant