State of U.P. vs. Veerpal & Anr.
Background
A woman died of burn injuries after her in-laws allegedly demanded money and, when refused, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Two dying declarations existed: one recorded by a police officer soon after the incident, and a second, more detailed one recorded two days later by a Magistrate naming the accused. The trial court convicted the accused (father-in-law and mother-in-law) based on the Magistrate's dying declaration and sentenced them to life imprisonment, but the Allahabad High Court acquitted them, doubting both dying declarations and suggesting the deceased may have set herself on fire.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding that a dying declaration recorded by a neutral, competent Magistrate carries greater evidentiary weight than an earlier informal statement to police, and that a conviction can rest solely on a dying declaration without corroboration if the court is satisfied it is true and voluntary. It found the Magistrate's declaration consistent with the medical evidence (burns absent from the chest, suggesting kerosene was poured on her by someone else rather than self-inflicted), and held the High Court had no valid basis to reject it merely because an earlier, less reliable statement existed.
Lesson Learnt
Courts give greater weight to a dying declaration recorded formally by a Magistrate than to an earlier informal statement, and such a declaration alone, if credible and consistent with medical evidence, can be sufficient to convict, even without other supporting witnesses.