The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a man for the murder of his wife in 2000, setting aside a previous acquittal and affirming that the testimony of the couple’s eldest daughter, coupled with a conscious dying declaration, left “hardly any scope” for doubt.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti dismissed the appeal filed by the convict, who had challenged a 2010 Karnataka High Court order. The High Court had previously reversed a trial court’s acquittal, finding the man guilty of dousing his wife in kerosene and setting her on fire following a domestic dispute.
The appellant and the deceased had been married for 17 years at the time of the incident in July 2000. While the first three years of the marriage were described as happy, the prosecution alleged that relations subsequently soured. The appellant reportedly began ill-treating his wife and making repeated demands for money, which were largely met by the victim’s father.
In July 2000, during a quarrel, the appellant poured kerosene on his wife and lit a fire. She was rushed to the hospital with severe burn injuries and survived for three days. Before her death, she made a dying declaration naming her husband as the perpetrator.
The trial court had originally acquitted the man, primarily on the technical ground that the bathroom where the incident occurred was too small to accommodate two people. However, the Karnataka High Court overturned this, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court focused on two primary pillars of evidence: the eyewitness account of the couple’s eldest daughter and the victim’s formal dying declaration.
Regarding the daughter’s testimony, the bench observed that she had narrated the incident exactly as she saw it.
“There is no material on record to show as to why she would falsely depose against her father,” the bench remarked, adding, “There is no inconsistency in her statement and there is no reason to disbelieve her.”
The Court also addressed the validity of the dying declaration. Citing the statements of two doctors who examined the victim, the bench noted that despite the severity of her injuries, she remained in a conscious and fit state to speak.
“There was no adverse material to doubt the dying declaration or to suggest that it was not actually or properly recorded or that the victim was not in a state to make such a statement,” the Court held.
The bench further noted that the declaration was recorded only after the attending doctor granted permission, satisfied with the victim’s mental condition.
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s initial acquittal was based on “slight discrepancies” that did not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case. The bench affirmed that the evidence proved the appellant picked a quarrel, used kerosene, and caused his wife’s death.
“In view of the above clinching pieces of evidence, there is hardly any scope for the acquittal of the appellant,” the bench said.
The Court dismissed the appeal and directed the man, who had been out on bail, to surrender immediately to serve the remainder of his life sentence.
