Sultan vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Background
Noori and her husband Sultan Akhtar were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly pouring kerosene on Noori's sister-in-law Khushboo and setting her on fire, based mainly on a dying declaration recorded by a Naib Tehsildar. The Allahabad High Court had upheld the conviction. A third accused, the mother-in-law Rukhsana, was also convicted but did not appeal and was separately released due to old age.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court scrutinised the dying declaration and found it riddled with gaps and contradictions. It was allegedly recorded hours before the FIR but was never mentioned in the FIR, the investigating officer learned of it only two days later with no clear paper trail on who ordered it recorded, the doctor who purportedly certified the declarant's fitness was never examined, and other witnesses gave conflicting accounts (one prosecution witness even attributed the burning to a "dowry" motive, which the dying declaration itself did not mention, while also naming persons never charge-sheeted). Given these serious inconsistencies casting doubt on the declaration's reliability, and since Section 32 of the Evidence Act requires a dying declaration to inspire confidence before it can be the sole basis of conviction, the Court gave the appellants the benefit of the doubt, set aside their conviction, and ordered their immediate release (subject to no other pending case).
Lesson Learnt
A dying declaration is admissible evidence but is not automatically conclusive. Where it is contradicted by the FIR timeline, other witness accounts, and lacks proper corroborative procedure (such as certification of the declarant's medical fitness), courts must extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused rather than convict on a shaky sole piece of evidence.