Delhi High Court raises doubt over deceased burn victim’s words, acquits ‘attacker’ 26 years on

“The deceased had come to the hospital with 90% burns. Would she use the words ‘her new lover’ to describe the appellant as the person who poured kerosene oil on her? This itself creates a doubt on whether the above history was indeed recorded in the statement of the deceased herself,” the April 16 order read. 

Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja found that the expression “her new lover” used in the dying declaration was not the words of the victim herself.

The high court acquitted the man, holding that the discrepancies in the alleged dying declarations were material, not minor, and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case: An evening, a death and a 26-year battle

• It was claimed by the prosecution that the accused met the victim around 1997. The accused was working in a factory at that time.
• It was further claimed that the accused had a physical relationship with the victim and used to provide weekly maintenance to her. 
• The prosecution stated that one evening in March 2000, the accused allegedly came to her house with a bottle of liquor and started drinking. 
• They had an altercation, and during that time, the accused allegedly picked up the kerosene oil can, poured it over the victim and pushed her on the burning stove, by which she caught fire. 
• The accused apparently fled from the spot after that, and in the meantime, the victim’s neighbour reached and poured the water on her, extinguished the fire and took her to the hospital. 
• The victim allegedly survived long enough to give statements to the doctor and later to the police. However, she succumbed to her injuries the next morning, with the post-mortem attributing death to shock from burn injuries.
• The accused was arrested a day after the incident, and a chargesheet was filed against him under Section 302 of the IPC (murder).  
• The trial court subsequently convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment, primarily relying on the alleged dying declarations and the surrounding circumstances in October 2004. 

‘Three dying declaration’

• The Delhi High Court found that the expression “her new lover” used in the dying declaration of the victim was likely recorded by the doctor concerned based on third-party input, and not the victim’s own words.
• It further noted that even the reference to “kerosene” in the medico-legal case (MLC) was based on smell noticed by the doctor, not on the victim’s statement, raising further doubt.
• The high court also noted that no explanation was given by the police for not recording the dying declaration before a magistrate or in question-and-answer form, despite claims that the victim was fit to give a detailed statement.
• The court rejected the first dying declaration of the victim, pointing to the absence of the victim’s signature or thumb impression on the document. 
• The second alleged dying declaration of the victim was also found to be suffering from material infirmities with improbable and unusually detailed particulars, including precise address details. 
• The Delhi High Court found that both declarations are inconsistent with each other in material particulars and rejected them. 
• A third alleged declaration, attributed to the landlord, was rejected as “hearsay” evidence.

Prosecution failed to prove case

• The high court noted that the death of the victim was unnatural and occurred due to burn injuries in March 2000. 
• It was clarified that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the alleged dying declarations made by the victim. 
• It was emphasised by the court that where dying declarations do not inspire confidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt, something it failed to do in the present case.
• It was added that the incriminating circumstances should be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and must exclude every other possibility of innocence of the accused. 
• The complete chain of circumstance should be fully established, and mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof, the court added.
• The high court found that the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case not only create a doubt concerning the manner in which the incident occurred, but more importantly, on the veracity of the alleged dying declarations. 
• The court clarified that dying declarations, if found to be voluntary, truthful and made in a fit state of mind, can form the sole basis of conviction.
• However, the bench cautioned that where such declarations suffer from inconsistencies, procedural infirmities and improbabilities, the court must exercise caution in placing reliance on them. 

Tried to save the victim

• Appearing for the man, senior advocate Jitendra Sethi argued that the neighbour and son of the victim had deposed in favour of his client.
• Sethi added that his client was called by the victim’s son from the factory to save her, and in the process, he sustained burn injuries himself. 
• It was further submitted that the accused was arrested from his house in March 2000, a day after the incident, which is unnatural for a person who has just committed murder. 
• He submitted that, therefore, the accused’s conduct is wholly inconsistent with that of a perpetrator of a crime and raises suspicion about the case of the prosecution.

Guilty mind

• Assistant public prosecutor Aman Usman submitted that there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. 
• He submitted that the death of the victim is admittedly unnatural and caused by burn injuries, which is proved by the MLC and the postmortem report. 
• It was further argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence, when viewed in its entirety, clearly points towards the guilt of the accused, and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial court. 
• He stated that the conduct of the accused in fleeing from the spot instead of aiding the injured victim is also indicative of his guilty mind. 
• It was further submitted that the minor variations in the manner of occurrence in the dying declarations did not diminish the core allegation that it was the accused who burnt the victim.