Gujarat HC Sets Aside Conviction In 14-Year-Old’s POCSO Suicide Case, Remands For Fresh Decision After Key Doctors Were Not Examined

The appellant was convicted by the Special POCSO Court of offences under Sections 305, 354(a) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act, based principally on two dying declarations.

The victim, aged 14, had set herself ablaze on 25 January 2021 and died of her injuries on 4 February 2021.

At trial, the prosecution did not call the doctor who treated the victim and recorded her initial history, or the Medical Officer who endorsed her fitness to give the dying declarations; the victim’s indoor medical papers were also not produced.

The appellant appealed against the conviction and sought suspension of sentence.

1. Whether the conviction, based on the dying declarations, could stand when the treating doctor and the doctor who endorsed the victim’s fitness to make them were not examined and the medical papers were not produced.

2. Whether the appellate court should set aside the conviction and remit the case for a fresh decision, given the trial court’s failure to secure material evidence.

The Court relied on Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, which empower—and, where necessary for a just decision, require—the trial court to summon material witnesses, recall witnesses, ask questions and obtain relevant evidence rather than act as a passive recorder.

It relied on Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P., AIR 2008 SC 19, for the principle that a dying declaration must be scrutinised for reliability and that the declarant’s fitness to make it must be proved; a doctor’s endorsement or a Magistrate’s recording of the declaration does not, by itself, establish its truthfulness.

It also relied on Anees v. State Govt. of NCT, AIR 2024 SC 2297, Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2022 SC 3707, and Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 958, for the trial court’s active truth-seeking role and duty to ensure material evidence is brought on record.

The Court noted that the conviction rested on the two dying declarations, while the prosecution had omitted evidence bearing directly on their reliability: the treating doctor’s account of the victim’s initial history, medical evidence concerning her fitness to make the declarations, and the indoor medical papers.

The trial court had not used its powers under Section 311 CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act to obtain that material, despite its importance to a just determination.

The Court therefore held that the omissions amounted to a failure to ensure a fair and complete trial, but did not decide the merits of the allegations or the evidentiary weight of the declarations.

The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the case within six months of receiving the order.

The Court expressly left the merits undecided.

The application for suspension of sentence was disposed of as no longer surviving following disposal of the appeal.