MP High Court: Dying Declaration, Hostile Witness Lead to Acquittal

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted Roopsingh, overturning his life sentence for his wife Gomti Bai's murder.
• The acquittal was based on the victim's dying declaration being contradicted by her own brothers, who were declared hostile witnesses.
• The court noted the brothers had no apparent reason to shield the accused but did not support their sister's dying declaration.
• The prosecution failed to explain the significant burn injuries sustained by the accused during the incident.
• The ruling clarifies that a dying declaration alone cannot sustain a conviction when contradicted by credible hostile testimony, especially from close relatives.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately concluded that the trial court could not have sustained a conviction based solely on Gomti Bai's dying declaration, given the direct contradictions from her own brothers.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, sitting at its Gwalior bench, recently overturned the life imprisonment sentence of Roopsingh, who had been convicted for the murder of his wife, Gomti Bai. The original conviction, handed down by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior, on February 16, 2021, found Roopsingh guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also imposed a fine of Rs 3,000.

The case stemmed from an incident on the night of November 2, 2017, when Gomti Bai allegedly cooked only rotis for dinner without vegetables, reportedly infuriating Roopsingh. The prosecution contended that he then quarreled with her, threatened her life, poured kerosene on her, and set her ablaze. Gomti Bai suffered nearly 100 percent burn injuries and was admitted to the Surgery Department of Jaya Arogya Hospital, Gwalior. Tragically, she succumbed to her injuries on November 9, 2017, leading to an FIR being registered on May 13, 2018, following a merg enquiry.

Crucially, Roopsingh himself sustained 30-35 percent burn injuries and was admitted to the same hospital department. A day after the incident, Naib Tahsildar Kuldeep Dubey recorded dying declarations from both Gomti Bai and Roopsingh. Gomti Bai's statement implicated her husband as the perpetrator, while Roopsingh's declaration (marked Ex.P/22) asserted that his wife had set herself on fire after their argument, and he was burned while attempting to extinguish the flames.

During its review, a Division Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla noted significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, particularly concerning witness testimonies. Out of 16 witnesses examined by the prosecution, seven, including Gomti Bai's mother, siblings, sister-in-law, and son, were declared hostile after failing to support the prosecution's narrative.

Of particular importance were the testimonies of Gomti Bai's brothers. Her brother Babbu, whom Gomti Bai had named in her dying declaration as being present at the scene and transporting her to the hospital, did not corroborate the prosecution's version in court. Similarly, another brother, Ramhet, who had brought Roopsingh to the hospital, testified that Gomti Bai's sari caught fire accidentally while she was cooking, and Roopsingh was injured while trying to save her. The court highlighted Ramhet's prior inconsistent statements, noting he had told the merg enquiry that Gomti Bai poured kerosene on herself, then stated during the investigation that Roopsingh poured it, before presenting the accidental fire account in his court testimony. The victim's son, Shekhar, also displayed a similar pattern of contradictory statements.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately concluded that the trial court could not have sustained a conviction based solely on Gomti Bai's dying declaration, given the direct contradictions from her own brothers. The bench emphasized that these witnesses, being Gomti Bai's real brothers, would naturally possess a stronger allegiance to her than to the appellant, yet they chose not to support her version of events as stated in her dying declaration. This significant deviation from the victim's account by close relatives, who had no apparent motive to shield the accused, severely undermined the reliability of the dying declaration as sole evidence.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the prosecution offered virtually no explanation for the burn injuries sustained by Roopsingh during the incident. The presence of these injuries, coupled with the conflicting eyewitness accounts and the hostile testimonies of the victim's family members, led the bench to determine that the dying declaration, standing alone, was insufficient to prove Roopsingh's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court granted the **MP High Court dying declaration hostile witness acquittal**, overturning the previous conviction.

This ruling from the Madhya Pradesh High Court provides crucial clarification on the evidentiary weight of dying declarations in Indian criminal law, particularly when confronted with **hostile witness contradiction India**. It reinforces the principle that while a dying declaration is a powerful piece of evidence, it **dying declaration alone cannot sustain conviction** if its veracity is significantly challenged by other credible, albeit hostile, testimony, especially from individuals with no clear reason to protect the accused.

The **Roopsingh acquittal hostile brothers** case serves as a significant precedent for legal practitioners assessing the strength of evidence in cases involving murder, now primarily governed by Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 302 IPC for offenses committed on or after July 1, 2024. The **Gomti Bai murder acquittal** highlights the judiciary's meticulous approach to ensuring justice, particularly when initial statements are later recanted by key family members, necessitating a comprehensive evaluation of all facts, including any injuries sustained by the accused, to prevent miscarriages of justice.

This ruling clarifies the evidentiary weight of dying declarations in Indian criminal law, particularly when contradicted by hostile witnesses who are close relatives of the victim. Lawyers must consider this precedent when assessing the strength of a dying declaration as sole evidence for conviction, especially in cases where family members' testimonies deviate from initial statements, impacting trial strategy and evidence evaluation.

Source: Original reporting via LiveLaw