Delhi HC Upholds Sister-In-Law’s Murder Conviction on Dying Declaration, but Sets Aside Cruelty Conviction

Dayawati suffered fatal burn injuries on 21 October 1998.

The next day, after a doctor certified her fit to make a statement, the SDM recorded her dying declaration implicating members of her matrimonial family, including her sisters-in-law.

Sharmishtha was tried separately after being declared a proclaimed offender and was convicted under Sections 302/34 and 498A/34 IPC.

She appealed, challenging, among other things, the reliability of the dying declaration and her presence at the scene.

Her counsel relied on submissions made in the appeals of co-accused, but the Court confined its assessment to evidence recorded in Sharmishtha’s own trial.

The Court considered the offences of murder and cruelty under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, respectively, together with Section 34 IPC on joint liability.

It treated the dying declaration as capable of supporting the conviction where the maker’s fitness to speak and the statement’s reliability were established; a doctor’s endorsement on the declaration itself was not mandatory, though medical certification was a rule of caution.

Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, abscondence could be considered as conduct alongside other evidence, but the Court also relied on *A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department*, 2021 INSC 697, for the rule that an appeal must be decided on the evidence recorded in that accused’s own trial, not evidence from a separate trial.

The Court found that the doctor had certified Dayawati fit to make her statement and that the SDM recorded it; the timing discrepancy in the intimation to the SDM was explained by the evidence and the lapse of time before witnesses testified.

The Court declined to rely on medical evidence from the co-accused’s separate trial, and held that the absence of a doctor’s signature on the declaration did not, by itself, make it unreliable.

It considered the declaration’s attribution of responsibility to the sisters-in-law, Ashok Kumar’s evidence that Dayawati had named Sharmishtha, and Sharmishtha’s prolonged abscondence; it therefore upheld the murder conviction.

By contrast, the declaration’s general reference to harassment did not specify cruelty by Sharmishtha, and Ashok Kumar did not attribute dowry demands or specific harassment to her; the Court accordingly found the evidence insufficient to sustain the Section 498A conviction.

Sharmishtha’s conviction under Section 498A/34 IPC was set aside, but her conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was upheld.

Her bail bonds were cancelled, and she was directed to surrender to the Jail Superintendent within three working days to serve the remainder of her sentence; failing that, the State was directed to take steps to arrest her.