Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma set aside a trial court conviction for murder and acquitted a man accused of pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her on fire, directing his release unless required in any other case. The Court found it unsafe to rely on the dying declaration relied upon for conviction, noting the absence of any contemporaneous medical endorsement that the deceased was conscious, oriented and mentally fit, with no record of pulse rate, blood pressure or burn assessment, and that no nearby magistrate recorded or certified the statement.

The appeal was filed by the accused–appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumber, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine. The prosecution case originated from an intimation received by Police Station Salumber regarding the admission of the accused’s wife in a burnt condition at the General Hospital, Salumber. A statement attributed to the victim was recorded and treated as a dying declaration. On its basis, an FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC and, following her death due to burn injuries, the offence was converted to Section 302 IPC.

Also Read: Co-Extensive Liability Under Contract Act, No Statutory Bar In IBC To Initiate Parallel CIRP Against Corporate Debtor And Guarantor For Same Debt: Supreme Court

The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and produced documentary exhibits. The defence contended that the dying declaration lacked medical certification of fitness and was recorded without involvement of a Magistrate. It was also asserted that the accused sustained burn injuries while attempting to save the deceased and that she suffered from mental illness. The prosecution relied upon the dying declaration, medical evidence including post-mortem findings, and testimonies of relatives who claimed the deceased narrated the incident to them.

The Court stated that “a close scrutiny of the record reveals that the material witnesses in the present case are (PW-2) Abdul Razzaq and (PW-1) Dr. Nitin Shah.” It recorded that PW-2 admitted he “neither obtained any written endorsement from the doctor certifying that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give a statement nor furnished any written requisition to the doctor in this regard.” The Bench further noted that “Ex.P-1 does not contain any specific endorsement either by him or by the doctor certifying that Smt. Kanku Devi was conscious and in a fit state of mind at the time of giving the statement.”

With regard to medical evidence, the Court recorded that PW-1 “did not make any endorsement or verification on Ex.P-1 regarding the mental or physical fitness of the deceased to give a statement.” It also observed that “there is no document on record indicating the pulse rate, blood pressure or percentage of burn injuries of the deceased at the relevant time.”

On the testimony of PW-4 and PW-11, the Court stated that “this contemporaneous official document materially contradicts their claim of having met and conversed with the deceased at Salumber Hospital.” It further recorded that “such contradiction goes to the root of their testimony and renders the alleged oral dying declarations attributed to them unreliable.”

The Bench observed that “the said statement is not only consistent but seems to be plausible and cannot be brushed aside as a mere denial.” It noted that the defence explanation “finds substantial corroboration from the medical evidence as well as the testimonies” of prosecution witnesses themselves.

On the dying declaration, the Court stated: “It is well settled that a dying declaration, if found to be voluntary, truthful and recorded in a fit state of mind, can form the sole basis of conviction. However, the converse is equally true: where the dying declaration is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, lacks procedural safeguards and is not free from doubt, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance upon it.” It further recorded that there was “a complete absence of any contemporaneous medical endorsement certifying that the deceased was conscious, oriented and mentally fit to make a statement.”

In its final assessment, the Court held that “the prosecution case, when tested on the anvil of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, suffers from serious infirmities, which go to the very root of the matter and render the finding of guilt wholly unsustainable.” It concluded that “the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellant Soma under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court held: “Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellant Soma under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of such doubt must necessarily ensure to the accused-appellant.”

Also Read: Possible Threat Perception Or Inter-Se Tensions Alone Cannot Defeat Parole If Jail Conduct Is Satisfactory : Rajasthan High Court

“Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.2018 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The accused–appellant Soma is acquitted of all the charges. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.”

“Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Office is directed to send the record of the trial court forthwith.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Jayant Joshi for Mr. Vinod Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Soma v. State
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:6293-DB
Case Number: D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 181/2018
Bench: Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma