Consistency on Material Particulars Upholds Conviction Based on Multiple Dying Declarations Despite Minor Omissions

On April 4, 2002, Bimla Devi was set on fire at her residence in Najafgarh

Before her death on April 6, 2002, she made multiple statements: a spontaneous disclosure to a PCR official (PW-6) in transit to the hospital, a medical history to Dr. Purwar (PW-15), a statement to the Investigating Officer after being declared 'fit for statement', and a formal dying declaration recorded by the SDM (PW-11) on April 5, 2002.

In all versions, she named the appellant, Babita Dagar, and two associates as the assailants who threw chilli powder in her eyes, attempted strangulation with a chunni, and set her ablaze.

The motive attributed was the appellant's desire to marry the deceased's husband, Surinder Singh.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302/34 IPC but acquitted the husband, Surinder Singh.

1. Whether multiple dying declarations that contain minor inconsistencies and variations are reliable enough to form the sole basis of a conviction

2. Whether the lack of medical evidence regarding chilli powder in the victim’s eyes or the acquittal of the co-accused (husband) vitiates the case against the appellant

Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the admissibility of statements made by persons as to the cause of their death.

The principle established in Atbir v. State (NCT of Delhi) that a truthful and voluntary dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction.

The treatment of multiple dying declarations as outlined in Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi).

The rule regarding the form of the declaration from Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar.

The "common thread" of truth in successive statements doctrine derived from Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay.

The Court observed that while the appellant highlighted minor discrepancies (e.g., whether tea/snacks were served or if the motive was explicitly stated in every version), these did not touch the "substratum" of the prosecution case.

The "common thread" across all five declarations—naming Babita Dagar, the use of chilli powder, the chunni, and the act of setting the victim on fire—remained consistent.

The Court credited the SDM’s testimony (PW-11) as an independent officer and noted that medical fitness was certified by doctors before each statement.

Regarding the absence of chilli powder in the post-mortem report, the Court held that medical opinion is advisory and cannot override the consistent factual testimony of the victim.

The recovery of a letter written by the appellant expressing her desire to marry the husband established a clear motive.

The Court upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 IPC and ordered the appellant to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence.