Inconsistencies and potential tutoring in multiple dying declarations entitle accused to benefit of doubt.

The appellants (husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law, and sisters-in-law of the deceased Kamlesh) challenged their conviction under Sections 498-A and 302/34 IPC

On 30.10.1988, Kamlesh was admitted to J.P.N. Hospital with 90% burn injuries

The initial MLC recorded the patient's statement that she was burnt accidentally while cooking

However, a subsequent statement recorded by the SDM at 3:30 P.M. implicated the appellants, alleging they set her on fire after starving her for three days due to dowry demands (scooter and cupboard)

Kamlesh died that evening

The Trial Court convicted all appellants based on the SDM’s dying declaration and testimony of the deceased's aunt (PW-1)

During the pendency of the appeal, the husband (Raj Pal) and mother-in-law (Phoolwati) passed away, causing the appeal to abate against them

The Court applied Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of dying declarations

It relied on Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), which establish that while a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, it must inspire full confidence, be free from tutoring or prompting, and be consistent if multiple declarations exist

In cases of multiple inconsistent declarations, the court must scrutinize the "rule of first opportunity" and the possibility of influence by interested relatives

The Court found the SDM’s dying declaration (Ex. PW-3/A) suspicious because the SDM fails to explain why she did not question the deceased about the contradictory "accidental" version in the MLC

The SDM recorded the statement using leading questions, suggesting she had been pre-informed of what to record

Furthermore, the fitness certificate was obtained after the statement was recorded, and the doctor who issued it was not examined

The Court noted a high probability of tutoring as the aunt (PW-1) was with the deceased for hours before the SDM arrived

The parents of the deceased (PW-7 and PW-8) turned hostile, stating their daughter was happy, never harassed for dowry, and was "hot-tempered," suggesting she may have burnt herself

The prosecution also failed to examine the "other aunt" who allegedly witnessed the deceased’s fear prior to the incident, and no medical evidence proved the alleged three-day starvation

The Court answered the issues in the negative, finding the element of doubt favored the accused

The appeals were allowed, and the surviving appellants (Jaswant, Dhanpati, and Suresh) were acquitted of all charges under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 IPC