Karnataka HC Acquits Four In-Laws In Woman’s Burn Death, Citing Doubts Over Dying Declaration And Lack Of Dowry Evidence

The deceased, Lakshmisaraswathi, married accused No. 1 on 22 April 2011 and died in hospital on 14 February 2012 from extensive burn injuries.

The prosecution alleged that her husband and his relatives harassed her over dowry and, on 13 February 2012, poured kerosene on her and set her alight.

The trial court convicted accused Nos. 2–5 under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but acquitted them of the offences under Sections 302 and 304B IPC; the case against accused No. 1 had abated on his death.

The State appealed the acquittals, while accused Nos. 2–5 appealed their convictions

The Court considered Sections 302, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The prosecution was required to establish the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

In assessing the alleged dowry death and murder, the Court examined whether the evidence—including the dying declaration—reliably established the accused’s involvement and the relevant dowry-related circumstances.

No precedent was cited in the judgment

The Court found Ex.P14 doubtful despite the doctor’s fitness endorsement: the treatment records were not produced; the police and doctor did not record when the statement began or ended; the doctor’s presence during recording was not documented; and the doctor acknowledged the deceased’s severe burns, fluid loss, complications and organ failure.

The earliest hospital document, Ex.P13, indicated that the deceased had set herself on fire, and the father testified that she was unable to speak when he saw her in hospital.

The Court also found the dowry and cruelty evidence insufficient: the parents did not identify who received the alleged cash, the marriage-talk witnesses turned hostile, Ex.P14 did not mention a dowry demand, and the evidence did not adequately establish cruelty connected with dowry.

It therefore found the prosecution had not proved any of the charges beyond reasonable doubt

It set aside their convictions under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, acquitted them of those offences, discharged their bail bonds and directed that any deposited fine be returned