Unreliable dying declaration contradicted by hostile witnesses and suppressed evidence cannot sustain conviction for dowry death or murder.

The deceased, Zubia, married the appellant Khalid in 2013.

On 19.02.2017, she sustained severe burn injuries and was rushed to District Hospital, Shahjahanpur by her husband and in-laws.

A written F.I.R. was lodged by her mother (P.W.-1) alleging a dowry demand of ₹1 Lakh and a motorcycle, and that the husband, sisters-in-law, and brother-in-law set Zubia on fire.

A dying declaration was recorded by a Naib Tehsildar (P.W.-6) on the day of the incident.

Zubia died on 07.03.2017 due to septicemia resulting from the burns.

During the trial, all material witnesses of fact, including the parents and brother of the deceased, turned hostile and repudiated the prosecution’s case.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302/149 I.P.C., sentencing them to life imprisonment.

1. Whether the dying declaration recorded on 19.02.2017 is reliable and can form the sole basis for conviction.

2. Whether the prosecution's failure to produce the second dying declaration recorded by the I.O. warrants an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

3. Whether the foundational facts for a conviction under the alternative charge of Section 304-B I.P.C. (dowry death) were established.

Principles governing dying declarations under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring the court to ensure the statement is voluntary, truthful, and free from tutoring as per Laxman v. State of Maharashtra and Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the presumption that suppressed evidence would have been unfavorable to the party withholding it.

Section 304-B I.P.C. regarding the necessity of proving "soon before death" harassment for dowry.

The Court found the dying declaration unreliable as the prosecution failed to produce medical records like the bed-head ticket or evidence regarding the percentage of burns, leaving the victim's "fit state of mind" in doubt despite a doctor's certificate.

The statement was a "vague and sweeping" generalization, implicating the entire family without specific roles, which suggested a motive of vindictiveness rather than truth and was contradicted by the F.I.R. which omitted two names later introduced.

The Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for suppressing a second dying declaration recorded by the I.O. on 04.03.2017.

The conduct of the husband in immediately rushing the victim to the hospital and informing her parents was bona fide and inconsistent with murderous intent.

Since all witnesses of fact turned hostile and denied any dowry demands, the charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. failed for lack of foundational evidence.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment dated 06.09.2021, and honourably acquitted all appellants (Mahnaz, Jayara @ Shayara Bano, Rashid, Khalid, and Shabnam) of all charges, ordering their release and discharge of bail bonds.