Supreme Court acquits husband in wife’s death due to inconsistencies in dying declaration: Suresh vs. State (2025) INSC 318 (04 March 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2025

Citation: (2025) INSC 318

Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Is a dying declaration enough to convict someone of murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Suresh vs. State. The court overturned the conviction of a husband who was accused of murdering his wife, emphasizing the importance of consistent evidence and the need for corroboration when relying on a dying declaration. This judgment highlights the complexities of evidence evaluation in criminal trials, particularly when the primary evidence is a statement made by the deceased.

Case Background

On 12 September 2008, around 6 p.m., Suresh’s wife was found with severe burns at their residence in Narayanachetti Street, Tuticorin. She was rushed to a hospital but succumbed to her injuries approximately three weeks later, on 2 October 2008. The prosecution alleged that Suresh had poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire.

Initially, the deceased told the police that the fire was accidental, occurring while she was working in the kitchen. However, in a later statement, she accused her husband of setting her ablaze. A judicial magistrate recorded a statement from the deceased on 18 September 2008, which the prosecution presented as her dying declaration.

The Trial Court convicted Suresh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relying primarily on the dying declaration. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this conviction. Suresh then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Suresh under Section 302 of the IPC, primarily based on the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (PW-12) on 18 September 2008, and the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (mother and father of the deceased, respectively).

In appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Madras affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, upholding the conviction and life sentence. The High Court’s decision was based on its assessment of the evidence presented, including the dying declaration and witness testimonies.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. According to Section 302, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The case also involves the concept of a “dying declaration,” which is a statement made by a person who is about to die, concerning the cause of their death. Such statements are admissible as evidence in court under specific conditions, as they are believed to be truthful due to the imminent nature of death.

Section 307 of IPC relates to attempt to murder. According to it, “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The dying declaration of 18 September 2008, was an afterthought influenced by the deceased’s parents (PW-1 and PW-2) due to strained relations between the families.
• The deceased made contradictory statements. Initially, she claimed the fire was accidental, but later accused her husband.
• The prosecution’s evidence, including the recovery of a kerosene can and matchstick, was doubtful due to hostile witnesses and delays in submitting the evidence to court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The dying declaration made before the Judicial Magistrate (PW-12) should be considered the primary evidence.
• The recovery of the kerosene can and matchstick from the scene corroborates the dying declaration.
• The initial false statement was made by the deceased in the presence of her husband.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the dying declaration is reliable given the inconsistencies in the deceased’s statements?
2. Whether the other evidence on record corroborates the dying declaration to warrant a conviction?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576: The court relied on this authority to reinforce the principle that inconsistent dying declarations require corroborative evidence to be considered reliable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies in the deceased’s statements and the lack of corroborative evidence. The court emphasized that a dying declaration should be relied upon cautiously, especially when there are doubts about its veracity. The absence of a kerosene smell on the deceased’s body, as testified by the doctor, and the hostile witnesses further weakened the prosecution’s case.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

For the issue of whether the dying declaration is reliable, the court’s logical reasoning can be illustrated as follows:

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration is a significant piece of evidence but should not be the sole basis for conviction if inconsistencies exist.
• Corroborative evidence is crucial when relying on a dying declaration, especially if there are doubts about its veracity.
• The courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence and consider the surrounding circumstances before accepting a dying declaration.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration, while an important piece of evidence, cannot be the sole basis for conviction if it is inconsistent with other evidence and lacks sufficient corroboration. This judgment reinforces the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of evidence in criminal trials and the need for caution when relying on statements made by the deceased.

Conclusion

In Suresh vs. State, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Suresh, due to inconsistencies in the dying declaration and lack of corroborative evidence. The court emphasized that a dying declaration should be relied upon cautiously and that corroborative evidence is crucial when there are doubts about its veracity. This judgment highlights the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of evidence in criminal trials and reinforces the principle that a dying declaration alone cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Dying Declaration
  • Evidence Law
  • Criminal Procedure
• Supreme Court Judgments
  • 2025 INSC 318
  • Recent Judgments

FAQ

1. What is a dying declaration?

   A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes their death is imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of their death. It is admissible as evidence in court.

2. Can a person be convicted based solely on a dying declaration?

   While a dying declaration is an important piece of evidence, this judgment clarifies that a conviction should not be based solely on a dying declaration if there are inconsistencies or a lack of corroborative evidence.

3. What happens if there are inconsistencies in the dying declaration?

   If there are inconsistencies in a dying declaration, the court will look for corroborative evidence to determine the reliability of the statement. The court must be cautious and consider the surrounding circumstances.