In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has acquitted a man previously convicted of murdering his wife by setting her on fire in September 2008, citing the unreliability of the dying declaration used as the primary evidence against him. The bench, consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, underscored the necessity of corroborative evidence when a dying declaration is suspicious or inconsistent.
The apex court’s decision highlights the critical judicial stance that while a dying declaration is a vital piece of evidence and can independently justify a conviction, its authenticity and reliability must be thoroughly evaluated in conjunction with the overall facts of the case. This comes after the man’s conviction was previously upheld by the Madras High Court in February 2012, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
During the trial, it emerged that the victim had initially told police at the hospital that her burns were the result of a kitchen accident. However, a subsequent statement recorded three days later contradicted this, alleging her husband was responsible for setting her on fire with kerosene. These conflicting statements, according to the Supreme Court, introduced a significant doubt about the authenticity of the dying declaration presented during the trial.
Moreover, the court noted that there was no evidence of dowry harassment, which often accompanies such allegations in marital disputes. It also highlighted that the familial relations had been strained, as evidenced by a legal case filed by the accused’s brother against the victim’s family members a few years after her death.
By setting aside the previous high court order and acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court has reinforced the legal principle that convictions based on dying declarations require careful judicial scrutiny to ensure that they are free from doubt and fully supported by additional evidence.
