In Brief
A man was convicted of murder and arson and sentenced to death for setting a room on fire that killed his son and two brothers. On appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted him and ordered his release. The Court found that while dying declarations from two of the deceased were admissible, they were unreliable because they contradicted eyewitness accounts—specifically, the declarations omitted any mention of the two purported eyewitnesses who claimed to have been present and witnessed the crime. The declarations lacked medical certification of the declarants' fitness and were inconsistent with evidence about who locked the door. The Court held that dying declarations cannot form the sole basis of conviction when they lack corroboration and invite suspicion, and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.