The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the requirement of a doctor’s certificate regarding the mental fitness of a declarant to make a dying declaration is not a mandatory rule of law, but a rule of prudence. The court clarified that the core test is whether the declaration is truthful, voluntary, and free from external influence. A division bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi delivered this ruling while deciding two connected criminal appeals. Applying this principle, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the husband, Suhail, affirming his conviction and life sentence for murdering his wife, Sanno, by setting her on fire. Concurrently, the court allowed the appeal of the father-in-law, Tufail, acquitting him of harassment charges due to a lack of evidence linking him to the crime.
Background of the Case
The case arises from the marriage of Sanno and Suhail, which was solemnized in 2014. On November 16, 2017, at around 8:00 PM, Sanno sustained severe burn injuries inside her matrimonial home in Sultanpur Ghosh, District Fatehpur. Sanno’s mother, Anarunnisha, lodged a written report on November 20, 2017, alleging that Sanno’s husband, Suhail, and several in-laws poured kerosene on Sanno while she was sleeping and set her on fire. The stated motives for the act were that Sanno was unable to conceive after three years of marriage and that a dowry demand for a four-wheeler vehicle was not met.
Sanno was immediately admitted to the District Hospital in Fatehpur, where her dying declaration was recorded on November 17, 2017, by Dr. Santraj Singh, Naib Tehsildar. She was later referred to Hallett Hospital in Kanpur, where she succumbed to septicemia on November 30, 2017, after suffering from 95% thermal burns. Following the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act solely against Suhail and Tufail, while exonerating five other family members. The trial court subsequently added an alternative charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
On January 14, 2020, the trial court acquitted both accused of dowry death and dowry prohibition offenses. However, it convicted the husband, Suhail, under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The father-in-law, Tufail, was convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to two years of imprisonment. Both appealed their convictions.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellants argued that Sanno’s death was purely accidental. They contended that she caught fire at 9:00 PM while cooking food in her hut when a kerosene lamp fell from above the clay stove due to pressure from insects. They argued that Suhail also sustained burns while trying to extinguish the flames. Highlighting that all prosecution fact witnesses, including Sanno’s mother during her cross-examination, had turned hostile, the defense argued that there was no credible evidence of torture. Furthermore, the defense contested the reliability of Sanno’s dying declaration, arguing that it was highly improbable for a patient with 95% deep burns to give a coherent statement, making the document suspicious, tutored, and fabricated. For Tufail, the counsel argued that he lived in a separate hut, worked as a laborer, and had no involvement in Sanno’s life or the alleged harassment.
Conversely, the Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) appearing for the State argued that the dying declaration was completely voluntary, coherent, and reliable. The State emphasized that Dr. Atul Kumar Srivastava, the attending Medical Officer, had issued two separate certificates—one before and one after the recording—explicitly verifying that Sanno was conscious, well-oriented, and mentally fit. It was also noted that no family members were present in the ward during the recording, entirely ruling out any possibility of tutoring or prompting.
The Court’s Analysis and Precedents
The High Court meticulously scrutinized Sanno’s dying declaration. In her statement, Sanno explicitly described how her husband beat her, poured kerosene, and set her on fire. She cited two reasons for his actions: ongoing taunts for being childless, and her having caught Suhail in a compromising position with his sister-in-law, Rabiya.
Addressing the defense argument regarding the absence of a specific “fit state of mind” certification by the doctor, the High Court analyzed the landmark Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710. The High Court highlighted the following verbatim observation from the Supreme Court:
“The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is very solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason that the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of cross-examination, the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however, has always to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination.”
The Court further referenced the Supreme Court’s observation on the form and recording of such statements:
“A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording.”
Applying the principles established in Laxman, Koli Chunilal Savji and another v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562, and Krishna Kumar @ Pamma v. State of Haryana (1998) 8 SCC 586, the High Court observed:
“the requirement of a doctor’s endorsement regarding the mental fitness of the deceased to make his/her declaration is not a rule of law or a mandatory provision, but merely a rule of prudence; the ultimate test is whether the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary, and free from any tutoring, prompting, or other suspicious circumstances.”
The High Court also emphasized the credibility of the Executive Magistrate who recorded the statement. Citing the precedent in Koli Chunilal Savji, the court noted:
“the Executive Magistrate is a disinterested witness and is a responsible officer and there is no circumstance or material on record to suspect that the Executive Magistrate had any animus against the accused or was in any way interested in fabricating the dying declaration”
Furthermore, the High Court rejected the defense’s accidental fire theory by pointing to the conduct of the husband. The Court observed:
“If the accused-appellant Suhail was innocent, he would have been duty-bound to take his burnt wife Sanno to the hospital for treatment and also to inform the police by giving information at the concerned police station having jurisdiction about the incident.”
The court noted that Suhail instead fled the scene and failed to provide medical help or notify the police, which strongly indicated a homicidal death rather than an accident. The hostile turn of the prosecution fact witnesses was attributed to them being won over by the defense, which did not diminish the evidential value of the reliable dying declaration.
However, regarding the father-in-law, Tufail, the High Court analyzed the official site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. The map clearly demonstrated that Tufail lived in a separate house, while Suhail and Sanno resided in a separate, isolated hut. The court concluded that there was no substantive evidence of cruelty or harassment against Tufail, making his conviction unsustainable.
The Decision
The High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2020 filed by Suhail. His conviction under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC was affirmed, and he was ordered to remain in jail to serve out his life sentence.
Meanwhile, the court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 2020, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against Tufail under Section 498A IPC. Tufail was acquitted of all charges, his bail bonds were cancelled, and his sureties were discharged.
Case Title: Suhail Versus State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2020
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
Date: July 01, 2026
