In Brief
A young woman (Baby) died of severe burns (72%) on 6 March 1989, five days after being found on fire. She made three dying declarations: the first two (recorded on 4 March by police and an Executive Magistrate) identified her boyfriend Raju as the perpetrator who poured kerosene on her; the third (recorded on 5 March by another magistrate) claimed she caught fire accidentally from a falling chimney/lamp. The appellant (Raju) challenged his murder conviction, arguing the third declaration exonerated him. The Supreme Court held that in cases of multiple conflicting dying declarations, each must be evaluated independently on its own merits, considering proximity to the incident, witness presence, recording method, and corroboration by medical and circumstantial evidence. Here, the first two declarations—recorded closer to the incident with proper procedures and supported by 72% burns inconsistent with accidental chimney fall—were more reliable than the third. The conviction was upheld.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.