Magistrate-recorded dying declaration of accidental death prevails over inconsistent oral testimonies alleging dowry harassment.

The deceased, Anuradha @ Aarti Solanki, married Pawan Solanki on February 24, 2014

On September 29, 2018, she sustained 99% burn injuries at her matrimonial home and succumbed to her injuries during treatment on October 1, 2018

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment for dowry by her husband and in-laws, leading her to commit suicide by self-immolation

Conversely, the defense presented a dying declaration recorded by a Naib Tehsildar, wherein the deceased stated the fire was accidental, occurring while she was lighting a stove

The Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram, acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 498A and 304-B of the IPC on June 13, 2022, granting them the benefit of doubt

The State appealed this acquittal, contending the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of the deceased’s relatives

1. Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B and cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether there was evidence of harassment or cruelty "soon before death" in connection with dowry demands

3. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or legally unsustainable, warranting interference by the High Court

The court primarily applied Section 304-B (Dowry Death) and Section 498A (Cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code

Under Section 304-B, the prosecution must prove that the death occurred within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances and that the deceased was subjected to cruelty "soon before death" in connection with dowry

The court also relied on the principle of appellate interference in acquivittals as articulated in Mahabir and Others v. State of Haryana (2025), which mandates that interference is only justified in exceptional cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice

Additionally, the court weighed the evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act

The court observed significant contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the deceased’s family members (PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-6) compared to their previous statements

The father of the deceased (PW-6) admitted that no formal complaints regarding dowry or harassment were lodged prior to the incident

Most critically, the court highlighted the dying declaration (Ex.D-10) recorded by the Naib Tehsildar (DW-1), which was supported by a medical certificate of fitness

In this declaration, the deceased explicitly stated the fire was an accident and that her husband attempted to save her

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a proximate link between any alleged cruelty and the death, as there was no reliable evidence of harassment occurring "soon before death"

Consequently, the court determined that the trial court’s decision to grant the benefit of doubt was a plausible view based on the material record

The court affirmed that an order of acquittal should not be disturbed unless it is perverse or results in a miscarriage of justice

Finding no such error, the court dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge

The records of the trial court were ordered to be returned forthwith