The Supreme Court has reinstated a murder conviction, drawing a sharp line between cases built on suspicion and those anchored in direct proof. Where a clear and credible dying declaration exists, the Court said, the question of motive fades into irrelevance.
Overturning a Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling that had set aside the conviction, the Court held that the absence of a proven motive cannot undo a case supported by direct evidence. The High Court had earlier doubted the prosecution narrative on the ground that there was no clear reason for the husband to commit such an extreme act, noting the absence of any ongoing disputes or litigation between the couple.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach outright. It underlined that motive matters most in cases stitched together from circumstances. When the evidence comes straight from the victim herself, recorded in a dying declaration that is consistent and trustworthy, motive ceases to be decisive.
In this case, the woman had given her statement before an executive magistrate, naming her husband as the person who set her on fire. The declaration did not stand alone. It spoke of repeated quarrels, humiliation, verbal abuse, and persistent ill-treatment within the marriage. According to the Court, this background was more than sufficient to explain the crime, even if motive was not proved with precision.
The judgment noted that the law does not demand mathematical certainty when it comes to motive. A reliable and cogent account of the offence, especially one delivered in the shadow of death, cannot be brushed aside simply because the reason behind the act is not conclusively established.
Finding fault with the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court said the earlier acquittal stemmed from an improper re-evaluation of evidence and a misunderstanding of settled principles governing appeals against convictions.
With that, the conviction recorded by the trial court was restored. The husband was directed to surrender and serve the remainder of his sentence.
