The Madras High Court has reaffirmed that a dying declaration, when recorded properly and corroborated by consistent circumstantial and medical evidence, can sustain a conviction for murder even in the absence of any eyewitness. This judgment clarifies the threshold for admissibility and reliability of dying declarations in cases where direct evidence is unavailable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the horrific death of a woman who sustained 65% to 90% burn injuries after being doused with diesel and set on fire at her partner’s residence. The deceased, previously married and separated from her husband, had been living with the appellant, Perumal, for approximately eight years. On the night of 23.11.2012, the appellant took her from her parental home, returned shortly thereafter, and falsely claimed she had set herself on fire. Her family rushed to the scene and found her naked, severely burned, and barely conscious. She identified the appellant as her attacker before succumbing to her injuries the next day.
Procedural History
- 23.11.2012: Crime registered under Section 307 IPC after initial complaint by the deceased’s brother
- 24.11.2012: Deceased died; charge altered to Section 302 IPC and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Dowry and Prevention of Cruelty to Women Act (TNWHA)
- 2013: Charge sheet filed; case committed to Sessions Court
- 08.02.2019: Fast Track Mahila Court, Vellore, convicted appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and one year RI
- 2019: Criminal Appeal filed before Madras High Court challenging conviction
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal, arguing that the conviction rested solely on an unreliable dying declaration, lacked eyewitnesses, and was unsupported by independent corroboration. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a dying declaration, unsupported by eyewitness testimony, can form the sole basis for conviction under Section 302 IPC when corroborated by medical evidence, circumstantial facts, and the conduct of the accused.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the dying declaration was inadmissible due to: (1) the deceased’s severe burns (65%-90%) rendering her incapable of coherent speech; (2) material contradictions between the initial statement to the doctor and the Magistrate’s recorded declaration; (3) failure to examine the sister-in-law (Dhanalakshmi) who initially reported the incident; and (4) absence of any independent witness to the quarrel or assault. He relied on State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal to assert that conviction cannot rest on a single piece of evidence without corroboration.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate in the presence of a treating physician who certified the deceased’s mental fitness. The declaration was consistent with the post-mortem findings of contusions and burns, the landlord’s testimony confirming cohabitation, and the appellant’s suspicious conduct - returning to the parental home within minutes to falsely claim self-immolation. The prosecution cited State of H.P. v. Hari Singh to affirm that a dying declaration need not be corroborated if it inspires confidence and is internally consistent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous re-appreciation of evidence, emphasizing that while no eyewitnesses existed, the prosecution’s case was built on a chain of circumstantial evidence that was complete, unbroken, and mutually reinforcing. The Court noted that the dying declaration was not an isolated piece of evidence but was corroborated by multiple independent sources.
"The deceased was conscious, oriented, and in a fit state of mind throughout the recording of the dying declaration, as certified by the treating physician and the Magistrate."
The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that burn injuries of 65%-90% rendered the deceased incapable of speaking, citing the testimony of P.W.11 (treating doctor) and P.W.12 (Magistrate), both of whom attested to her lucidity. The Court further observed that the post-mortem report (Ex.P.5) corroborated the dying declaration by revealing contusions on the forehead, wrists, lips, and cheeks - consistent with prior assault before the fire was set.
The Court also highlighted the appellant’s conduct: his immediate return to the parental home to fabricate a story of self-immolation, his failure to call for help, and his silence during trial. The Court held that when a person is the last seen with the victim under exclusive control, and the victim dies under suspicious circumstances, the burden shifts to the accused to offer a plausible explanation - which he failed to do.
The Court distinguished Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar as inapplicable, noting that this was not a case of arbitrary arrest but one of evidentiary sufficiency. It affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain and leaving no reasonable hypothesis of innocence, is sufficient for conviction.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 4(1) of TNWHA, affirming that a properly recorded dying declaration, supported by medical evidence and consistent circumstantial facts, can sustain a conviction even in the absence of eyewitnesses.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Dying Declarations Are Not Inherently Unreliable
- Practitioners must challenge dying declarations on grounds of mental fitness, timing, and consistency - not merely on the absence of eyewitnesses
- Medical certification of consciousness at the time of recording is decisive; courts will not presume incapacity based on injury severity alone
- The burden shifts to the defense to show coercion, tutoring, or inconsistency
Circumstantial Evidence Must Form a Complete Chain
- In cases with no direct witnesses, prosecutors must establish: (1) last seen together, (2) motive, (3) opportunity, (4) conduct post-incident, and (5) corroborative medical evidence
- The Court emphasized that each link need not be proven beyond doubt, but the chain must be unbroken and exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence
- Landlord testimony confirming cohabitation and the accused’s suspicious behavior were critical in closing the evidentiary gap
Conduct of the Accused Is a Critical Factor
- False explanations given immediately after the incident (e.g., claiming self-immolation) are strong indicators of guilt
- Silence during trial, failure to produce any defense evidence, and lack of alibi weigh heavily against the accused
- Courts will infer consciousness of guilt from conduct that is inconsistent with innocence
