Inconsistent dying declarations by severely burnt declarant under sedative influence cannot sustain a murder conviction without corroboration.

The Appellant (Accused No. 1) was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, Komal, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli

The prosecution alleged that on July 19, 2019, the Appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire following a domestic quarrel

The deceased purportedly made two dying declarations (Exhibits 61 and 47) before a Naib Tahsildar (PW-4) and a Police Head Constable (PW-2) before succumbing to 96% burn injuries on July 23, 2019

The trial court acquitted the co-accused (parents-in-law) but convicted the husband based solely on the dying declarations

The Appellant challenged the conviction, citing inconsistencies and the deceased's lack of mental fitness

1. Whether the two dying declarations recorded at Exhibits 61 and 47 were consistent, voluntary, and reliable enough to form the sole basis of conviction

2. Whether the deceased was in a fit mental and physical state to give a coherent statement given her 96% burn injuries and administration of sedatives/painkillers

Section 302 of the IPC regarding murder

Principles governing dying declarations established in Paniben v. State of Gujarat, which mandates that while a conviction can be based on a dying declaration without corroboration, the court must ensure the statement is not the result of tutoring and that the deceased was in a fit state

Uttam v. State of Maharashtra regarding the scrutiny of multiple contradictory dying declarations

Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra regarding the impact of sedatives and extensive burns on the reliability of such statements

The High Court found the dying declarations to be riddled with material inconsistencies and procedural lapses.

First, the motive varied: Exhibit 61 cited a phone call from a sister-in-law, while Exhibit 47 attributed the trigger to the deceased waking up late

Second, the mental fitness of the deceased was doubtful; PW-2 admitted she was "whining" and "blinking," and medical records (Exhibit 59) showed she was administered Tramadol (a sedative/painkiller) and described as "uncooperative"

Third, procedural defects were noted: the statements were not in question-answer form, the scribe was not examined, and the doctor was allegedly standing outside during recording

Fourth, the testimony of the deceased’s mother (PW-5) and an independent witness (PW-1) contradicted the prosecution; PW-5 claimed the fire was accidental while cooking, and PW-1 stated the deceased was not in a position to speak

The Court held that 96% burns combined with sedation made a lengthy, coherent declaration highly improbable

The Court held that the dying declarations lacked the "absolute' credibility" required to sustain a conviction without corroboration

Directing the immediate release of the Appellant, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to the infirmities in the evidence and the possibility of tutoring