The Allahabad High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of Tilluka alias Manoj for the murder of his sister-in-law, Satyavati, ruling that her dying declaration was truthful, voluntary, and sufficient to establish his guilt. The Court dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the trial court's conviction, holding that minor discrepancies and the delay in lodging the FIR did not weaken the prosecution's case.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from the judgment dated October 25, 2019, passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge-III, Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 543 of 2015. The trial court had convicted Tilluka @ Manoj under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹25,000.
According to the prosecution, Satyavati had allowed the appellant's family to cook food at her house while their own home was under renovation. The prosecution further alleged that the appellant had borrowed ₹5,000 from her for construction work. On July 2, 2015, when Satyavati demanded repayment, an argument followed. Shortly afterwards, she was allegedly doused with oil and set on fire by the appellant.
Initially, an FIR was registered under Sections 307 and 506 IPC. After Satyavati died during treatment from septicemic shock caused by extensive burn injuries, the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, only Tilluka @ Manoj was charge-sheeted, while the other persons named in the FIR were not found involved.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Appellant's Arguments
The defence argued that the FIR was lodged nearly eleven days after the incident without a satisfactory explanation, making the prosecution story doubtful.
It also pointed to an inconsistency between Satyavati's dying declaration, where she referred to vegetable oil, and the medical evidence, which noted the smell of kerosene. The appellant further argued that the prosecution witnesses were not eyewitnesses and that he himself had helped take the victim to the hospital, suggesting innocence rather than guilt.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi examined the entire evidence and found no reason to interfere with the conviction.
The Court noted that although the FIR was formally registered several days later, the victim's dying declaration had been recorded on the very day of the incident by the Additional City Magistrate after medical certification that she was conscious and capable of making a statement.
Rejecting the argument regarding delay, the Bench observed that the police had already received information about the incident, as the Magistrate had been officially directed to record the victim's statement immediately after her admission to the hospital. It also accepted the explanation that the victim's husband was under severe distress and initially faced reluctance from the police while attempting to register the FIR.
Addressing the alleged discrepancy regarding the type of oil used, the Court held that a victim who had suffered nearly 80% burn injuries could easily mistake whether vegetable oil or kerosene had been used.
The Bench observed:
"The discrepancy about the kind of oil... cannot be discounted. Any person in the victim's position... could mistake the kind of oil that was employed in the assault."
The Court also accepted the testimony of two prosecution witnesses as evidence forming part of the immediate circumstances surrounding the incident. Though they did not witness the actual act of setting Satyavati on fire, they reached the spot immediately and heard her naming Tilluka as the person responsible.
Dying Declaration Found Reliable
The High Court devoted significant attention to the legal principles governing dying declarations.
The Bench noted that Satyavati's statement was recorded in a question-and-answer format by a Judicial Magistrate after he personally satisfied himself that she was conscious and speaking voluntarily.
In her statement, she clearly identified Tilluka as the person who poured oil on her and set her on fire while she was cooking.
Referring to settled Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that a conviction can legally rest solely on a reliable dying declaration if the Court is satisfied that it is voluntary, truthful and made while the victim was mentally fit.
"The dying declaration in this case is one that inspires confidence,"
the Bench observed, adding that there was no evidence of tutoring, prompting or outside influence.
Court's Decision
Finding the dying declaration trustworthy and supported by the surrounding evidence, the High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the material on record.
The Bench held that there was no illegality or error in the conviction or sentence awarded to the appellant. Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and life sentence imposed by the trial court were affirmed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tilluka @ Manoj v. State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2020
Judge: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
Decision Date: 2 July 2026
