The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of causing the death of his pregnant wife by setting her on fire, relying heavily on a dying declaration recorded during her treatment. However, while maintaining the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, the court modified the sentence from life imprisonment to a fixed term of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment without remission.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to November 2010 in Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh. Manish, the appellant, was accused of pouring kerosene oil over his wife Ruchi and setting her on fire inside a house in Kashiram Colony. After the fire, he allegedly bolted the door from outside. Ruchi, who was carrying an eight-month pregnancy, managed to scream for help. Neighbours gathered and rescued her. She was admitted to the District Hospital, Sitapur, where she fought for her life for nearly 23 days before succumbing to her injuries on December 21, 2010. The baby she was carrying also did not survive.
Ruchi's mother, Maya Devi, filed a complaint alleging that her son-in-law had been demanding Rs. 50,000 as additional dowry, and had been harassing her daughter over its non-fulfilment. An FIR was registered on January 28, 2011. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, convicted Manish under Section 302 IPC in February 2019 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He then appealed to the High Court.
A major issue before the High Court was whether the dying declaration could be relied upon as the primary piece of evidence.
The defence argued that the statement was not recorded in a question-and-answer format and lacked independent corroboration. It also questioned the victim's ability to make a coherent statement because of the extent of her burn injuries.
Rejecting these objections, the bench observed that there is no legal requirement that a dying declaration must be recorded in a particular format. The court noted that the declaration had been recorded by a competent Executive Magistrate and was backed by a doctor's certification that the victim was conscious and fit to give her statement.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Indrajeet Shukla observed that a properly recorded dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence and can by itself form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence.
The High Court examined the victim's statement in which she alleged that kerosene was poured on her and she was set on fire inside a room, after which the door was bolted from outside.
Referring to these allegations, the court said the conduct described in the dying declaration demonstrated intention. The judges noted that the victim was carrying an eight-month pregnancy and that the accused allegedly took advantage of her vulnerable condition.
The bench further rejected the argument that the case should be converted from murder to culpable homicide because the death occurred later due to septicaemia. The court held that the burn injuries remained the primary and proximate cause of death and that subsequent medical complications did not break the chain of causation.
“The intended burn injuries proved to be fatal,” the bench observed while concluding that the offence fell within the ambit of murder under Section 300 IPC.
While affirming the conviction, the court separately considered the issue of punishment.
The judges took note of several mitigating factors, including the appellant's age at the time of the offence, the long period already spent in custody, his reported good conduct in prison, and the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
The court observed that punishment should not be based on vengeance alone and concluded that a fixed sentence would adequately balance deterrence, proportionality and the prospect of reform.
Accordingly, the High Court commuted the life sentence to a fixed term of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment without remission, while maintaining the conviction. The appeal was partly allowed only to that extent.
Case Details
Case Title: Manish v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 565 of 2019
Judges: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Indrajeet Shukla
Decision Date: June 3, 2026
