Contradictory dying declarations and uncorroborated evidence cannot sustain conviction under S.498A IPC or S.302 IPC.

on

Facts

Burn injuries within nine months of marriage; conflicting dying declarations.

The deceased married Nagendra Singh on 12.07.2000 and suffered burn injuries on 15.04.2001. The prosecution alleged dowry harassment and homicidal burning. Two dying declarations emerged: the first accused the husband and in-laws of pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze; the second stated she committed suicide due to harassment.

The Trial Court convicted all accused under s. 498A IPC and s. 302 r/w s. 34 IPC, but the High Court acquitted them of murder while sustaining conviction under s. 498A IPC. Appeals were filed by the father-in-law (against conviction), and by the State and complainant (against acquittal for murder).

Issues Framed

(a) Whether conviction under s. 498A IPC against the father-in-law was sustainable.
(b) Whether acquittal under s. 302 IPC was justified in light of the dying declarations.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) Evidentiary value of dying declarations
The Court reiterated that a dying declaration “cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is reliable and free from suspicious circumstances” (Para 24). Where multiple declarations exist, “consistency… and absence of tutoring” is crucial.

Here, two declarations were materially contradictory. The first suggested homicide; the second stated suicide. The Court found the first doubtful as “one of them had told the deceased to depose in a certain way” (Para 23), indicating tutoring. The second was held more reliable.

(b) Failure of corroboration and credibility of witnesses
Family witnesses introduced dowry allegations only during trial, absent in s. 161 CrPC statements. The Court held such “improvements… appear to be an afterthought” (Para 17). No independent corroboration existed; neighbours turned hostile.

The alleged letter (Ex. P-3) was unproved. Medical evidence did not conclusively establish homicidal burns.

(c) Principles of criminal proof and circumstantial evidence
Relying on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Court emphasized that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and circumstances must exclude every hypothesis of innocence (Para 25). Where “two inferences are possible, the one favouring the accused must be followed” (Para 27).

(d) Application to s. 498A IPC (father-in-law)
Allegations against the father-in-law were “generic in nature” with no direct evidence of cruelty or dowry demand. The Court cautioned against implicating relatives without specific roles, noting misuse concerns in s. 498A IPC cases (Para 27).

Held

Appeal by Narendra Singh allowed; conviction under s. 498A IPC set aside. Appeals by State and complainant dismissed; acquittal under s. 302 IPC upheld.

Ratio

Where multiple dying declarations are materially inconsistent and prosecution evidence lacks corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained as guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Case Details

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2014
Decided on: 30 April 2026
Case Title: Narendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Aravind Kumar, J.; N.V. Anjaria, J.