Bombay HC Acquits Mother-In-Law In Daughter-In-Law’s Burn Death, Finding Dying Declarations Unreliable And No Kerosene On Her Clothes

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly setting her daughter-in-law, Priyanka, on fire, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The appellant’s son, who was also charged, was acquitted.

The prosecution relied principally on two written dying declarations recorded on the day of the incident, both implicating the appellant.

A later video-recorded statement implicated both the appellant and her son; the trial court disbelieved it.

The High Court also considered the evidence of a neighbour who saw the victim after the incident, medical evidence, and chemical analysis showing no kerosene traces on the appellant’s clothes.

The Court considered the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and the prosecution’s obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In assessing the dying declarations, it examined whether the declarant was fit to make a statement and whether the declarations were credible and consistent; the Court treated a medical endorsement that a patient could give a “verbal statement” as insufficient, in the circumstances, to establish mental fitness.

The final release direction referred to Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, requiring a bond in case an appeal against acquittal is preferred.

The Court declined to rely on the first written declaration because its detailed narrative and repetition of the account, including the naming of persons allegedly present, indicated that it was not recorded in the victim’s exact words.

It found the second declaration unreliable because the doctor’s endorsement did not establish the victim’s mental fitness or specify when the endorsement was made, and the SEM did not record an independent assessment of fitness.

The account in that declaration was also inconsistent with the neighbour’s evidence that the appellant’s son was present and the appellant was not seen, and the absence of kerosene on the appellant’s clothes further supported reasonable doubt.

The Court agreed with the trial court’s rejection of the video-recorded declaration and considered the relatives’ oral declarations unsafe to rely on, given the relatives’ involvement and the concerns surrounding the video statement.

It set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and directed her release forthwith unless required in another case.

Before release, she was to execute a ₹15,000 bond under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023, for appearance if an appeal against acquittal was preferred.