Wife’s Dying Declaration About Maruti Car Demand: Delhi HC Upholds Husband, Mother-in-Law’s Murder Convictions Despite Her 100% Burns

Dayawati, married to Tilak Raj, an ASI in the Delhi Police, suffered 100% burn injuries at her matrimonial home on 21 October 1998 and died two days later.

On 22 October, after a doctor certified her fit to speak, an SDM recorded her statement alleging that her husband demanded a Maruti car and that her husband, in-laws and sisters-in-law were present when she was set on fire; she stated that Raj Kumari had not been there that day.

The Trial Court convicted Tilak Raj, Prem Singh and Anokhi Devi under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 498A/34 IPC, and Raj Kumari under Section 498A/34 IPC.

Prem Singh died during the appeal, which abated as against him.

The surviving appellants challenged the convictions, principally disputing the reliability of the dying declaration and the medical possibility of making it.

Sections 302, 201, 498A and 34 IPC governed murder, causing disappearance of evidence, cruelty and common intention, respectively.

A dying declaration is admissible as to the cause of the declarant’s death and the circumstances of the transaction resulting in it under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Under Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710, there is no prescribed form for a dying declaration; medical certification is a rule of caution, and the court must assess whether the declaration was voluntary and reliable.

Govindappa v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 6 SCC 533, similarly holds that absence of a doctor’s certification is not by itself fatal.

State of M.P. v. Dal Singh, (2013) 14 SCC 159, establishes that burn percentage alone does not determine the declarant’s capacity to speak or make a thumb impression; the issue depends on the evidence in the particular case.

Section 498A requires proof of cruelty within its statutory definition, including harassment to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful property demand.

The Court accepted the SDM’s account of recording the declaration, supported by the doctor’s fitness endorsement and other witnesses; it found the timing discrepancies explicable by the passage of time.

Medical evidence explained how resuscitation could restore the capacity of a patient with extensive burns to make a statement.

The Court also inspected the original record and found the thumb impression nearly blank, consistent with degloving, rather than evidence that the declaration was fabricated.

The declaration’s account that Raj Kumari was absent supported its reliability; the cleaned scene, lingering smell of kerosene, and the rejected alibi of Anokhi Devi and Prem Singh provided further support for the prosecution case.

The Court found the evidence sufficient to uphold the murder and evidence-destruction convictions against Tilak Raj and Anokhi Devi.

For Section 498A, however, it found a specific car demand and harassment established against Tilak Raj, but no sufficiently clear allegation against Anokhi Devi; the allegation that Raj Kumari “used to instigate” was too ambiguous to sustain conviction.

It upheld Anokhi Devi’s convictions under Sections 302/34 and 201/34, acquitted her under Section 498A, and modified her sentence to the period already undergone—five years, seven months and one day.

Raj Kumari’s Section 498A/34 conviction was set aside.

The appeal against Prem Singh had abated on his death.

The Court also requested the Commissioner of Police to take steps to arrest proclaimed offenders Sudesh and Hans Raj and directed monthly progress reports to the Trial Court until their arrest.