Court affirms life imprisonment for husband and in-laws named in dying declaration, while acquitting two others due to absence of test identification parade and witness recognition
In a significant judgment dated October 16, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Jai Krishna Upadhyay) upheld the conviction of three accused-husband Anuj Kumar, mother-in-law Smt. Rajeshwari, and father-in-law Brajpal-in a dowry-related burn death case, while acquitting two others, Vipin and Madan, for lack of proper identification.
The case arose from the death of Priti, who allegedly suffered extensive ante-mortem burn injuries on January 4, 2017, and succumbed to her injuries early on January 5, 2017. The deceased's father, Santosh, upon learning about the incident at the matrimonial home in village Asrasi, Budaun district, discovered that Anuj Kumar, Rajeshwari, Brajpal, and Vipin had allegedly poured kerosene oil over Priti and set her ablaze. The FIR was lodged late that night, and a dying declaration was recorded at 4:48 PM on the day of the incident by the Naib Tehsildar after a doctor certified Priti fit to give a statement.
During the trial, all prosecution witnesses of fact, including Priti's mother, sister, and maternal aunt, turned hostile, denying allegations of dowry torture and stating the death was accidental due to a stove burst. Notably, none of the witnesses recognized the accused Vipin and Madan. The Investigating Officer testified that Madan was not known to the family, was not named in the FIR, and that no test identification parade was conducted for Vipin and Madan.
The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 302 (murder) read with 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with fines. However, appeals were filed by all accused challenging their convictions.
The High Court extensively analyzed the evidentiary value of the dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reiterating that a dying declaration recorded by a competent authority after medical certification of the declarant's fitness carries substantial sanctity. The court referred to the Supreme Court precedents, including Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22), emphasizing that a dying declaration need not be corroborated if found truthful and reliable. The court observed that the hostile stance of prosecution witnesses does not necessarily negate the dying declaration, as witnesses may be influenced emotionally or materially.
However, the Court highlighted a crucial distinction regarding the accused Vipin and Madan. Since these two were not previously known to the witnesses, and neither test identification parade nor in-court identification was conducted, their identity remained unestablished. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Tukesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (AIR 2025 SC 2666), which mandates that when eyewitnesses do not know accused persons before the incident, proper identification procedures such as test identification parade are essential to fix identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Given the absence of any reliable identification, the Court acquitted Vipin and Madan, setting aside their convictions. Conversely, since Anuj Kumar, Rajeshwari, and Brajpal were known to the deceased and the informant, and were specifically named in the dying declaration, their identity was fixed beyond doubt. The Court dismissed their appeals and upheld their convictions and sentences.
This judgment underscores the paramount importance of dying declarations in criminal trials, especially in dowry death cases, while simultaneously reinforcing procedural safeguards to ensure accurate identification of accused persons. It also highlights the challenges faced in prosecution when witnesses turn hostile, and the necessity for courts to carefully scrutinize evidence and apply legal principles judiciously.
Bottom Line:
Dying declaration, if recorded by a competent officer after medical certification of fitness, can form the basis of conviction even when prosecution witnesses turn hostile; however, conviction of accused not previously known to witnesses cannot be sustained without proper identification or test identification parade.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 149, 498A, 304B, Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 and 4
Smt. Rajeshwari v. State of U.P., (All)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998634
