Karnataka HC Sets Aside Husband’s Murder Conviction Over Doubts In Wife’s Dying Declarations, Orders Release After 12 Years In Custody If Not Needed Elsewhere

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Sannappa, abused and assaulted his wife, threatened her with a knife, and set her on fire on 22 September 2015.

She suffered burns over 90–95% of her body and died on 28 September 2015.

The prosecution relied principally on two statements recorded from her in hospital: Ex.P14, described as a dying declaration, and Ex.P15, on which the FIR was registered.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498-A, 302, 504, 323, 341 and 506 IPC.

He appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC.

The High Court noted concerns including the absence of the doctor’s signature on the statements, the lack of a fitness endorsement for Ex.P15, the non-production of hospital records, and the failure to examine two persons said to have been present when Ex.P14 was recorded.

The Court considered Section 302 IPC in assessing whether the prosecution had proved murder beyond reasonable doubt, and Sections 498-A, 341, 504, 323 and 506 IPC in reviewing the remaining convictions.

It applied the principle that a dying declaration may be recorded by a police officer and is not inadmissible solely because it was not recorded by a Magistrate; however, its reliability must be assessed in light of the circumstances, and it is unsafe to rely on it where material doubts remain.

Medical certification of fitness is not an indispensable legal requirement, but its absence may assume significance alongside other evidence raising doubt about the declarant’s condition.

The Court also stated that last-seen evidence, by itself, is insufficient to sustain conviction unless the circumstances form a complete chain pointing to guilt and excluding reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.

Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the electronic recording could not be relied upon without the requisite certificate or another legally recognised basis for admissibility.

The Court found Ex.P14 unreliable because the doctor’s signature was absent, the persons said to have witnessed its recording were not examined, and the circumstances surrounding the deceased’s ability to speak were disputed.

Ex.P15 was also doubtful: despite the severity of the burns, it lacked a medical fitness endorsement, and the doctor’s signature was absent even though the doctor was said to have been present.

The failure to obtain a Magistrate’s statement, the absence of hospital records, and conflicting evidence about whether the deceased could converse further undermined the statements’ reliability.

The video recording could not cure these defects because the prosecution had not produced the Section 65B certificate required for its admissibility.

The Court therefore found the evidence insufficient to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt, while concluding that the testimony of PWs.2, 4, 5 and 7 established cruelty.

The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were set aside, but the convictions under Sections 498-A, 341, 504, 323 and 506 IPC were confirmed.

As the appellant had already undergone 12 years’ imprisonment—exceeding the sentences imposed for those offences—the Court held that the sentences were served and directed his release if he was not required in another case.