Materially inconsistent dying declarations cannot sustain a murder conviction without reliable corroboration.

On 11 April 1999, Pooja, the appellant’s wife, was admitted to hospital with 100% burn injuries and died the following day

The MLC recorded her initial account that she had been sleeping and did not know how she was burnt; later statements to the investigating officer and SDM alleged that the appellant had beaten her, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire

Her family members also alleged dowry-related harassment, while the appellant maintained that Pooja had set herself on fire and that he was injured while trying to save her

The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC; he appealed

1. Whether the later incriminating statements could safely support conviction despite materially differing from Pooja’s earliest account recorded in the MLC

2. Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused Pooja’s death and subjected her to dowry-related cruelty

Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes relevant a statement concerning the cause of a person’s death or the circumstances resulting in it; a voluntary, truthful and reliable dying declaration may sustain conviction without corroboration, but multiple declarations must be assessed for consistency on material particulars and in light of the circumstances in which they were made

The court also considered the principles in Mohan Lal v. State of Haryana, (2007) 9 SCC 151, and Suresh v. State, 2025 INSC 318, concerning the assessment of potentially tutored or inconsistent declarations, and Chacko v. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 112, Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 173, and Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2024) 13 SCC 660, concerning medical fitness and the effect of treatment on a declarant’s capacity

The charges were under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC

The court found that the first account in the MLC was recorded soon after admission, when Pooja was conscious and fit to give a history, and was not challenged on that basis

Her later accounts implicated the appellant but materially contradicted that earliest account; they were made after relatives had reached the hospital, and the prosecution produced no medical evidence about treatment that could establish her fitness when they were recorded

The dowry allegations were inconsistent and lacked support in Pooja’s letters or her later statements

Further, neighbour Omwati’s evidence placed the appellant outside the house before he rushed in, the child who may have witnessed the event was not examined, and the appellant’s burn injuries and defence evidence supported his account of attempting a rescue

Taken together, these circumstances left reasonable doubt as to both the alleged homicide and the cruelty charge

His bail bond was directed to remain valid for three months