### Inconsistent Dying Declarations and Material Procedural Lapses Entitle Accused to Benefit of Doubt in Acquittal Appeals

The prosecution alleged that on June 23, 1991, the accused set the victim (Vilasba) ablaze by pouring kerosene on her

The victim had been married to Accused No. 1 for three years and was allegedly subjected to cruelty

The Trial Court acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 498-A, 302, and 114 of the IPC on March 28, 2000

During the pendency of this appeal, Respondents No. 2 and 3 passed away, resulting in the abatement of proceedings against them

The State challenged the acquittal, relying primarily on four dying declarations made by the victim between the incident and her death on July 3, 1991

1. Whether the multiple and conflicting dying declarations of the deceased were reliable enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC

2. Whether the lack of a post-mortem report and the hostile testimony of material witnesses (parents and neighbors) rendered the prosecution’s case doubtful

3. Whether there was patent perversity in the Trial Court’s acquittal warranting interference by the Appellate Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C.

The court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 498-A (Cruelty), and Section 114 (Abettor present) of the Indian Penal Code

It utilized the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal convictions

Regarding the scope of appellate interference in acquittals, the court relied on the principles restated in Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), which hold that an acquittal should only be reversed if the judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible

Specifically, the four dying declarations were inconsistent: the first alleged murder, while the subsequent three (including the FIR) stated the victim committed suicide due to matrimonial anguish

The court noted a suspicious discrepancy in the timing of the first declaration and the fact that it bore a thumb impression despite testimony that the victim's hands were bandaged and unusable

Furthermore, the victim’s parents (PW-2 and PW-3) turned hostile, denying any cruelty by the accused

The court criticized the "shabby" investigation, particularly the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination, which deprived the court of essential medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries

Consequently, the court determined that the Trial Court’s view was reasonable and lacked perversity

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal

The proceedings against respondents 2 and 3 were declared abated, and the bail bonds for the remaining respondents were cancelled