Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan on Thursday (January 15) allowed the State’s appeal and restored the conviction and sentence of a husband for murdering his wife by setting her on fire, overturning a 2014 Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had acquitted him on the premise that motive was not proved. The Bench said proof of motive is generally more relevant in cases built on circumstantial evidence, and that where the prosecution relies on dependable direct material such as a dying declaration, the absence of a firmly established motive does not by itself defeat the case. The Court directed the accused to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.

The case arose from allegations that the respondent-husband set his wife on fire at their matrimonial home in Himachal Pradesh in December 2009. The prosecution alleged that the accused poured kerosene on the victim and ignited it with a matchstick, following persistent matrimonial discord. The victim sustained extensive burn injuries and underwent medical treatment at different hospitals before succumbing to her injuries in January 2010.

Also Read: Supreme Court Backs Disability Rights As CSR Obligation, Directs Coal India To Create Supernumerary Post For Candidate Denied Employment Due To Multiple Disabilities

An FIR was registered on the basis of information given by the victim’s brother. During investigation, a Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate recorded the victim’s statement in hospital, which was treated as her dying declaration. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for the offence of murder.

The trial court, after recording prosecution and defence evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, extending the benefit of doubt. The State challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had erred in discarding the dying declaration and in relying on hostile and defence witnesses.

The Court examined the scope of appellate interference with an acquittal and noted that “there is no absolute restriction in law on the appellate court to review and reappreciate the entire evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded”. It recorded that interference is justified where the acquittal is based on “an erroneous appreciation of evidence or is contrary to settled principles of law”.

On dying declarations, the Court observed that “a conviction under Section 302 IPC can rest solely on a dying declaration if it is found to be voluntary, truthful and reliable” and that corroboration is “not a rule of law but one of prudence”. It further stated that “a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances”.

Assessing the declaration in the present case, the Court recorded that it “was recorded on 08.12.2009 by PW-1, the Tehsildar, a neutral and independent public officer” after obtaining medical opinion. It noted that “PW-1 categorically stated that the deceased was conscious, oriented and capable of making a statement” and that this was corroborated by other witnesses.

The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning on alleged inconsistencies, observing that “such a minor discrepancy, which stood satisfactorily explained, does not go to the root of the prosecution case”. On the manner of recording, it stated that “recording a dying declaration under the supervision of a Magistrate does not render it invalid”.

With respect to hostile and defence witnesses, the Court recorded that their testimonies were “essentially hearsay” or lacked direct knowledge and that reliance on them to overturn the conviction was erroneous. It further observed that “the plea of self-immolation does not inspire the confidence of this Court”.

Also Read: Caste Passions And Bigotry Must Be Uprooted: Madras High Court Dismisses Same-Day NBW Recall Plea, Flags Selective Non-Arrest Of Suspended Sub-Inspector Accused In SC/ST Act Honour Killing Case

The Court directed that “the criminal appeal filed by the appellant – State is allowed”. The impugned judgement of acquittal passed by the High Court is set aside”. The judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court are restored. The respondent shall surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law”. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Gautam, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Krishna Pal Singh, AOR (Amicus Curiae) Ms. Anvita Aprajita, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh Bais, Adv. Mr. Seemab Qayyum, Adv.

Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 57
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2018
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan