Prithivi Raj vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Background
In 1999, the appellant's wife died of 100% burns shortly after marriage. Her first statement, to the admitting doctor, said she didn't know how she caught fire because she was sleeping; but later statements, made hours afterward, after her parents had visited her, accused her husband of beating her, pouring kerosene on her, and setting her alight. The trial court convicted the appellant of murder and cruelty based on the later statements.
Decision Breakdown
The High Court found the four dying declarations inconsistent on the most material point, with the earliest, most "untutored" version exonerating the husband. The later statements came only after relatives visited, raising a real possibility of tutoring, with no medical evidence about her mental clarity as a severely burnt patient. The dowry-harassment allegations were vague and uncorroborated. An independent witness and the prosecution's own evidence showed the appellant himself suffered burn injuries trying to save her, consistent with the defence version, and the prosecution failed to produce the one true eyewitness, the couple's five-year-old son, despite his availability. The appeal was allowed and the appellant acquitted.
Lesson Learnt
When a dying or injured person makes multiple, conflicting statements over time, courts give special weight to the very first, spontaneous account: a conviction cannot rest on a later version if it contradicts the earliest one without a credible, medically-supported explanation for the change.