No Reason To Disbelieve Her: Supreme Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction For Wife’s Murder; Relies On Daughter’s Testimony & Dying Declaration
Court says minor inconsistencies in witness testimony cannot override reliable dying declaration and medical evidence confirming that the victim was conscious and capable of making a statement.
Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice SVN Bhatti, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Sections 302 and 498A IPC for burning his wife to death, affirming the findings of the Karnataka High Court that the prosecution had established the case through the victim’s dying declaration, medical evidence, and the testimony of the couple’s daughter who witnessed the incident.
The Court relied on the testimony of treating doctors who confirmed that the victim was conscious and in a fit condition to give a statement when the declaration was recorded. The doctor on duty had specifically endorsed that she was capable of making the statement before the police recorded it. The Court further held that the evidence on record clearly proved that the appellant poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire following a domestic dispute.
Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti specifically recording that the trial court was not justified in acquitting the appellant on slight discrepancies in the statements of some of the witnesses, observed, “…PW-16 is the police inspector who conducted the investigation. He might have deposed that the deceased was not in a conscious state of mind but that would not override the statement of the doctors who treated the deceased, especially the one who was on duty and had permitted the police to record the statement of the deceased on being satisfied that she was in a fit condition to make a statement”.
On the testimony of the daughter, who was an eyewitness in the matter, the Court noted, “...She has narrated the incident as was seen by her. There is no inconsistency in her statement and there is no reason to disbelieve her. There is no material on record to show as to why she would falsely depose against her father. Her evidence clinchingly proves that the appellant brought kerosene, poured it on her mother and lit the fire”.
Senior Advocate Shekhar G Devasa appeared for the appellant and Advocate Shashwat Jaiswal appeared for the respondent.
The accused-husband and the deceased had been married for seventeen years and had four children. According to the prosecution, although the couple lived happily during the initial years of their marriage, their relationship later deteriorated as the accused frequently demanded money from the victim’s parental family and subjected her to cruelty.
On the night of July 20, 2000, the couple allegedly had another quarrel regarding money, where in the course of the dispute, the accused fetched kerosene, poured it on his wife inside their house, and set her on fire before fleeing the scene.
Thereafter, neighbours extinguished the flames and she was rushed to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, but she succumbed to severe burn injuries three days later on July 24, 2000. Following her death, an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 302 and 498A IPC.
While the Trial Court acquitted the accused citing inconsistencies in witness testimony and doubts regarding the victim’s ability to make a statement due to extensive burns, the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him.
The Court observed that there was no reason for the daughter to falsely implicate her own father, and her testimony provided strong corroboration of the prosecution case.
The central issue before the Court was the validity of the victim’s dying declaration recorded in the hospital by a police officer. The defence argued that the deceased had suffered 80–90% burns and was under sedation, making it impossible for her to give a reliable statement.
The dying declaration stated that her husband had quarrelled with her over money, assaulted her, poured kerosene on her body, and set her on fire.
"There is no adverse material to doubt the above dying declaration or to suggest that it was not actually or properly recorded or that the deceased was not in a state to make such a statement, there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration.", the Court added.
The Court, thus, dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit, directed the appellant, who was on bail, to surrender immediately to undergo the remaining sentence of life imprisonment.
Cause Title: Subramani v. State Of Karnataka [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 249]
Appearances:
Appellant: Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv., Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Muthanna, Rakesh Kini, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR, Advocates.
Respondent: Sanchit Garga, AOR, Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Diksha Arora, Aarohi Garg, Sankalp Mishra, Advocates.