The Allahabad High Court has upheld the life imprisonment awarded to Sarita Devi and Malti Devi in a 2015 Lucknow murder case, holding that the dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate was voluntary, trustworthy and legally sufficient to support their conviction. The Court dismissed both criminal appeals after finding no error in the trial court's appreciation of evidence.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from a judgment dated April 4, 2023, passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in Lucknow, who convicted Sarita Devi and Malti Devi under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, Manisha Sharma suffered severe burn injuries at her matrimonial home in Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, on October 27, 2015. Initially, an FIR was registered under Sections 307 and 326 IPC. After she succumbed to her injuries during treatment at Safdarjung Hospital in New Delhi on November 4, 2015, the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC.
During the trial, the prosecution relied on the victim's dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, medical evidence, forensic reports and witness testimony. While three accused were convicted by the trial court, co-accused Shambhu Sharma was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence.
Arguments Before the High Court
The appellants argued that the prosecution relied on multiple dying declarations which allegedly contained material contradictions regarding the role attributed to each accused. They contended that these inconsistencies made the declarations unreliable and incapable of forming the sole basis of conviction.
The State opposed the appeals, submitting that the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was made only after the attending doctor certified that the victim was mentally fit. It also argued that the declaration stood corroborated by medical evidence, forensic findings and surrounding circumstances.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava examined the law governing dying declarations in detail. The Court noted that while multiple dying declarations require careful scrutiny, only material inconsistencies affecting the core prosecution case would reduce their evidentiary value.
Referring to recent Supreme Court precedents, the Bench observed that a dying declaration recorded by an independent Magistrate, after medical certification of the victim's mental fitness, carries significant evidentiary value and can form the sole basis of conviction if found voluntary and truthful.
The Bench found that the Executive Magistrate had recorded the victim's statement after obtaining certification from the attending doctor regarding her fitness. The doctor also certified that she remained mentally fit throughout the recording process.
Rejecting the defence challenge, the Court said:
“A dying declaration recorded by an independent Magistrate, where there is no opportunity for tutoring, fabrication, or psychological promptings, is highly reliable and cannot be ignored.”
The High Court further held that minor variations between the victim's statements to different persons did not amount to material contradictions. According to the Bench, the Magistrate-recorded dying declaration remained consistent on the essential aspects of the prosecution case and was fully supported by medical evidence showing extensive ante-mortem burn injuries.
The Court also rejected the defence theory that the deceased had set herself on fire, observing that the claim was speculative and unsupported by the evidence on record.
Decision
After examining the entire record, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that there was no illegality or perversity in the conviction.
Dismissing Criminal Appeal Nos. 1491 of 2023 and 1587 of 2023, the Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of Sarita Devi and Malti Devi.
The Bench also dismissed the pending bail applications and directed that the trial court records be returned for compliance.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. & Connected Appeal (Smt. Malti Sharma v. State of U.P.)
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1491 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No. 1587 of 2023
Judge: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Decision Date: 30 July 2026
