An improved oral dying declaration contradicted by contemporaneous medical evidence is insufficient to prove guilt.

The appeals arose from the conviction of A1–A6 for offences including conspiracy and murder following the death of Adhilakshmi, mother of P.W.1.

The prosecution relied principally on an alleged oral dying declaration identifying A1 and four others, a matrimonial dispute said to provide motive, and arrests and recoveries. The trial court convicted the appellants, although it acquitted A2 and A4–A6 of the charge under Section 148 IPC. The appellants challenged their convictions under Section 374(2) CrPC.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the circumstances on which it relied—motive, the alleged oral dying declaration, and arrest and recovery—to establish the appellants’ guilt.

Whether the trial court’s convictions and sentences could stand in light of the evidence and the applicable standard for a case based on circumstantial evidence.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance relied on by the prosecution must be firmly established by cogent and reliable evidence; cumulatively, the circumstances must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing only to the accused’s guilt, be consistent with guilt, and be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. If the circumstances permit more than one reasonable inference, the accused must receive the benefit of the doubt.

The charges and convictions concerned, among other provisions, Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 302, 302 read with Sections 149 or 109, and Section 71 IPC; the judgment applied no cited precedent.

The Court found that the alleged matrimonial dispute did not establish a nexus between the accused and the murder, and the prosecution had not established the accused’s presence near the scene.

The alleged dying declaration was undermined by the Accident Register’s record that the deceased named an unknown assailant, the witnesses’ failure to mention the declaration in their Section 161 CrPC statements, and its omission from the complaint and FIR; the Court treated the later testimony as an improvement.

The claimed CCTV identification was also unsupported by the investigating officer’s evidence, while the recoveries had no established nexus to the crime.

Accordingly, the circumstances did not form a reliable chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial court’s acquittal of A2 and A4–A6 under Section 148 IPC remained intact; bail bonds were discharged and any fines paid were ordered refunded.