The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife by burning, affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court held that reliable and properly recorded dying declaration can form the sole basis of the conviction, even in the absence of supporting eyewitness testimony.
The case arose from an incident where the appellant was accused of assaulting his wife, pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze, leading to her death due to burn injuries. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 342 IPC, a finding which was affirmed by the High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that the dying declaration was unreliable, alleging that the victim was not in a fit mental state and that the statement was recorded improperly.
Rejecting these contentions, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the dying declaration had been recorded after due medical certification of the victim’s fitness and in accordance with legal requirements. The Court noted that there was no material to suggest tutoring or fabrication, and termed the challenge a mere “bald assertion”.
The Court reiterated that dying declarations, being an exception to the rule against hearsay, carry a special evidentiary value and can be relied upon if found to be consistent, voluntary and trustworthy. It further held that minor procedural aspects, such as the certificate being recorded on the same sheet, do not dilute the evidentiary value where substantive compliance is established.
Addressing the argument that key witnesses had turned hostile, the Court held that such hostility does not weaken the prosecution’s case where the dying declaration is corroborated by medical evidence. In the present case, the medical testimony clearly supported the prosecution’s version that the victim had sustained burn injuries consistent with the declaration.
Finding no perversity or error in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Significantly, in a postscript, the Court reflected on the persistence of violence against women despite decades of legal reform, observing that such incidents highlight the continuing grip of patriarchal norms. It noted that legal and economic progress has not fully translated into social transformation, with crimes against women continuing at alarming levels. Highlighting the sad reality of gender roles, the court observed:
“India has experienced significant economic growth, rising literacy, and increased participation of women in education and the workforce….Yet, in rural and semi-urban scenarios, patriarchy remains a facet of everyday life….Welfare schemes can incentivize education, but cannot alter long-held beliefs about women’s roles within marriage and family. As a result, practices such as domestic abuse or even extreme acts like burning a wife (such as in this case) persist not as aberrations, but as indications of a disease afflicted social order”
The Court emphasised on the responsibility of the public while remarking that:
“After decades of laws, schemes, reforms, and judicial recognition of equality across workplaces, homes, personal relationships, and even the armed forces, why does the control over women’s bodies, choices, and lives still persist so deeply within society? Perhaps, the answer lies only with “We, the People of India”.”
Appearances
Petitioner- Ms. Kavita Vadia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Ms. Syeda Aaliya Fatima, Adv.
Respondent- Mr. Divynk Panwar, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
