Allahabad HC Acquits Man Convicted Under Section 304 IPC, Discards Dying Declaration Recorded Before Family Members

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court set aside a life sentence under Section 304 IPC, finding the dying declaration unreliable because it was recorded in the presence of the deceased’s relatives, and because evidence showed the husband had himself sustained burn injuries trying to save her.

The Allahabad High Court has honourably acquitted Jagan, who had been convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Moradabad. Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev, sitting as a Division Bench, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 5067 of 2018 on 19 August 2026, holding that the dying declaration of the deceased, Triveni, could not be relied upon because it had been recorded in the presence of her family members, and that the evidence on record did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had poured kerosene oil on her and set her alight. The bench drew support from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar (2026 SCC OnLine SC 357) and Mohan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana ((2007) 9 SCC 151).

The Case Before the Sessions Court

On 23 December 2015, Durgadas, the brother of Triveni, lodged an FIR under Section 326 IPC at Thana Civil Lines, Moradabad. He stated that Triveni and the accused Jagan had been married for eighteen years, had no children, and that this had been a persistent source of dispute between them. According to the FIR, at around 8:15 PM that evening, the accused had poured kerosene oil on Triveni and set her on fire. She was admitted to the Government Hospital, Moradabad.

Because Triveni was initially in a condition to speak, a dying declaration was recorded. The Additional Chief Magistrate, Mohammad Moinul Islam (PW-7), recorded the statement at 9:50 PM on 23 December 2015 after obtaining a fitness certificate from the Emergency Medical Officer of the District Hospital, Moradabad. A second certificate confirmed that Triveni remained lucid throughout the recording. Triveni died on 25 December 2015 at 8:45 PM while being brought to the hospital, according to the record keeper of the District Hospital (DW-3).

A panchayatnama was conducted on 24 December 2015. The postmortem, also conducted on 24 December 2015 by Dr. S.K. Chaudhari (PW-8), recorded superficial to deep burn injuries across the body and the smell of kerosene oil. The cause of death was recorded as shock and ante-mortem burn injuries. Police submitted a report under Section 304 read with Section 326 IPC. The Additional District & Sessions Judge framed charges on 8 July 2016 and, after trial, convicted Jagan under Section 304 IPC on 8 August 2018, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with six months’ additional simple imprisonment in default of payment.

What the Prosecution and Defence Witnesses Said

Eight prosecution witnesses testified. PW-1, Durgadas, reiterated the FIR account and attributed the burning to the accused, linking it to the couple’s childlessness. However, in cross-examination, PW-1 acknowledged that the Magistrate had recorded his sister’s dying declaration in the presence of all the family members — specifically his son Raj Kumar, his wife Ashawati, and his aunt. He also confirmed that there had been no prior complaint or police report from either side before the incident, and that the dispute was centred on whether the couple should adopt a child from the wife’s family (mayka) or from the husband’s family.

PW-2, Raj Kumar, was the scribe of the FIR and broadly corroborated PW-1. PW-3, Chandra Pal Singh, appeared as a witness in the panchayatnama. PW-6, Love Sirohi, was the Investigating Officer who described the course of his investigation.

The defence presented five witnesses. DW-1, Dr. Pawan Kumar, examined the accused and testified that his injuries could only have been caused by someone attempting to extinguish fire on a burning person. DW-2, Dr. Praveen Shah, stated that the injured Triveni had been brought to the hospital by the accused’s mother, Omwati. DW-4, Gajendra Singh, the elder brother of the accused, gave a detailed account: on 23 December 2015, after a quarrel over child adoption, the accused left the house. While Gajendra and Jagan were speaking to each other outside, they heard screaming and found Triveni had set herself alight after pouring kerosene oil on herself. Jagan wrapped her in a sack to douse the fire, sustaining burns himself. Triveni was then rushed to hospital, referred to Delhi, but died in Ghaziabad. DW-5, Kalua, the father of the accused, gave consistent testimony.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Jagan denied the charge and stated that the dispute arose from a disagreement over adoption — Triveni’s family wanted a child adopted from her mayka, while Jagan wished to adopt his brother’s son. He stated that following a verbal altercation, his wife had set herself on fire, and that he was innocent.

Arguments Advanced on Appeal

Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prarabadh Jain, appeared for the appellant. The primary submission was that the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of all the family members of the deceased, making it susceptible to tutoring and therefore unreliable. Counsel relied on paragraph 11 of Mohan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana ((2007) 9 SCC 151), where the Supreme Court had held that a dying declaration recorded after relatives had been present with the deceased — and only then asked to leave — was “clearly the result of tutoring and was not a free and voluntary one.”

On the question of sentence, counsel submitted that Section 304 Part-I IPC prescribes imprisonment for life or imprisonment of up to ten years. The trial court had imposed life imprisonment without recording special reasons as required under Section 354(3) Cr.P.C., and without hearing the convicted person on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. This procedural omission, it was argued, independently vitiated the judgment.

Sri Amit Sinha, Additional Government Advocate for the State, opposed the appeal and submitted that there were sufficient grounds to hold the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and that no lenient view should be taken.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench identified two central considerations. First, the physical evidence and the testimony of the defence witnesses pointed to the accused having sustained burn injuries in the course of trying to save Triveni — a fact that sat uneasily with the prosecution’s case that he was the perpetrator. The bench observed that DW-1 and DW-2 had both testified to the accused’s burn injuries and their cause. It also took note of the fact that the accused’s mother had taken the deceased to the hospital, and that the family had made efforts to transport Triveni towards a hospital in Delhi before she died in Ghaziabad.

Second, the bench addressed the dying declaration directly. PW-1 himself had stated in cross-examination that the Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration in the presence of all the family members. The bench held that in view of this fact, no importance could be attached to the dying declaration. This finding was consistent with the principles laid down in Mohan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana and Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, both of which were cited by the appellant’s counsel.

The bench also took into account that the admitted facts of the case — including the prosecution’s own witnesses — established that the couple had been married for eighteen years, had no children, and that the dispute centred exclusively on which family a child should be adopted from. There was no allegation of dowry demand, and no prior complaint had been made by either side. The bench concluded that it could not with any certainty be said that the accused had poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her alight, and that “the husband could not be outrightly blamed for the incident.”

Order

The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 8 August 2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 566 of 2016. Jagan was honourably acquitted of all charges. The bench directed that if the appellant was on bail, he need not surrender and that his sureties and bail bonds be discharged. The trial court record was directed to be returned to the concerned trial court.