Inconsistent dying declarations and deficient investigation cannot sustain a conviction for parricide based on motive alone.

On 23.11.2016, a fire gutted a shanty in Mahadeopur, Bihar, resulting in the death of Sarangdhar Singh and his wife, Kamla Devi

The deceased’s younger son (A1) and daughter-in-law (A2) were accused of murder due to a land dispute

The prosecution relied on multiple dying declarations: an FIS recorded by a Police Sub-Inspector (PW7), a statement recorded by a Block Development Officer (PW8), and oral statements to villagers

The defense argued the fire was accidental (gas cylinder burst) or a frame-up by the elder son (PW6) and a neighbor (PW1) to grab property

The Trial Court convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted them

The elder son appealed to the Supreme Court.

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

It relied on *Laxman v. State of Maharashtra*, establishing that while medical certification of a "fit state of mind" is preferred, the court may rely on attendant circumstances to determine mental fitness

It further applied principles from *Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi*, holding that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction only if it inspires full confidence and is free from tutoring

Finally, it applied Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., as interpreted in *Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, regarding the court's duty to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused

The Court found the dying declarations untrustworthy.

The FIS (first dying declaration) contained an improbable, detailed family history for a woman with 60% burns and was recorded in the presence of interested parties (PW1 and PW6), suggesting tutoring

The second declaration recorded by the BDO (PW8) was contradicted by the I.O. (PW7) regarding who actually wrote it, and no medical certification was sought despite a doctor's presence

Oral declarations were inconsistent and omitted the testimony of the first person to see the fire

Furthermore, the investigation was "grossly deficient": no scene mahazar was drawn, no forensic exam determined the fire's cause, and the I.O. failed to examine independent witnesses

The Court noted that the motive was neutralized by the elder son's admission that he was willing to share the property

Finally, the Trial Court failed its solemn duty under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by asking only four perfunctory questions, omitting all specific incriminating evidence

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence reached only the level of "maybe true" rather than "must be true"

The Court emphasized that poor investigation and the failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are fatal to the prosecution when the rest of the evidence is suspicious