Conviction may rest on dying declaration without corroboration if voluntary; Section 528 BNSS quashment denied.

The petitioner (Accused No. 2) is the brother-in-law of the deceased. On April 14, 2026, the deceased visited his father-in-law (Accused No. 1) to bring his wife (Accused No. 4) back to their marital home

Following a confrontation, it is alleged that Accused No. 1 poured petrol on the deceased, and the petitioner ignited a matchstick, setting the deceased on fire

A dying declaration was recorded before a Judicial Magistrate on April 15, 2026, after a doctor certified the deceased was conscious and fit

The victim succumbed to burn injuries on May 2, 2026, leading to the registration of Crime No. 138/2026 for offences under Sections 109, 103(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

An independent eyewitness (a nearby tea shop owner) corroborated the events in a witness statement

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), arguing that his arrest and the proceedings were based solely on an uncorroborated dying declaration

1. Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed at the FIR stage when the prosecution relies on a dying declaration supported by independent witness statements

2. Whether a conviction or continued incarceration can be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration without further corroboration

The Court applied Section 103(1) (Punishment for Murder) and Section 3(5) (Common Intention) of the BNS, 2023

Regarding dying declarations, it relied on the principles from Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay and Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat, establishing that a dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence and corroboration is a rule of prudence, not law

It followed the Constitution Bench ruling in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, holding that medical certification of fitness is a matter of satisfaction for the Magistrate

The court cited State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal (2026), affirming that conviction can rest solely on a voluntary and truthful dying declaration

Mirza Jawed Ahmed Baig v. State of AP, which held that the evidentiary value of such declarations is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated in quashment proceedings

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the arrest was based solely on an uncorroborated dying declaration. It noted that the deceased assigned specific overt acts—naming the petitioner as the one who lit the matchstick—while in a medically certified fit state

The Court highlighted that the declaration was significantly corroborated by the ocular testimony of an independent eyewitness (the tea shop owner), the FSL report confirming petrol in the seized bottle, and the post-mortem report linking death to burn injuries

The Court reasoned that under its extraordinary jurisdiction (Section 528 BNSS), it cannot conduct a "mini-trial" or weigh evidence when a prima facie case for a grave offence like murder is established

The presence of a neutral public officer (Magistrate) during the recording of the declaration further enhanced its reliability

The Court held that the truthfulness and evidentiary value of the declaration are matters for trial and do not warrant quashing the FIR at the threshold

The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to establish his innocence through a full-fledged trial