Case Summary: Didar Singh & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025) | Conviction Upheld in Domestic Homicide

This case concerns the sensational burning death of a woman, Gian Kaur, who accused her husband and son—Didar Singh and Maan Singh—of setting her ablaze. The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The central question before the Delhi High Court was whether the dying declaration, supported by circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to uphold the murder conviction.

Title of the Case: Didar Singh & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Citation: CRL.A. 366/2002

Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi

Judges: Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav

Date of Judgment: 14th November, 2025

This case also underscores established jurisprudence regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of dying declarations and emphasises the gravity of familial homicide.

Facts of the Case

On 5 April 2000, Gian Kaur was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital with 100% burn injuries by her daughter, Taranjit Kaur, and her son Maan Singh. As per the medico-legal case report, she disclosed to the on-duty doctor, Dr. Mohit Goel, that her husband and son had poured kerosene and set her on fire.

Shortly thereafter, her second statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO), ASI Ved Singh, which corroborated the earlier declaration and contained an endorsement from a doctor confirming that she was fit to make a statement. She died that night at around 11:15 PM due to extensive burn injuries.

An FIR was registered under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (common intention) IPC. A total of 16 prosecution witnesses and one defence witness were examined.

The trial court convicted both father and son and sentenced them accordingly. During appeal, Didar Singh died, and Maan Singh was declared a proclaimed offender.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the dying declaration(s) made by the deceased were reliable and admissible to form the sole basis of conviction?
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence—particularly the absence of burn traces and conduct of the accused—corroborated the prosecution's case?
3. Was there sufficient motive or evidence to indicate homicide rather than suicide?
4. Whether procedural lapses in recording the dying declaration affected its sanctity?

Legal Framework

Dying Declaration

Under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a dying declaration is admissible as an exception to hearsay. The courts have held that such declarations may form the sole basis of conviction if found to be truthful, reliable, and voluntary.

Relevant Precedents

The judgment cites several Supreme Court decisions:

• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22): A Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction.
• Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710: Certification by a doctor is preferred but not mandatory.
• P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443: Mental fitness of the declarant is crucial.
• Irfan v. State of U.P. (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1060: A dying declaration that inspires confidence can suffice without corroboration.
  
• Atbir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1: Summarises guidelines for relying on dying declarations.

Arguments

Appellants

• The deceased could not have made a statement due to 100% burns, including to her lips and face.
• She only knew Afghani language, making a statement in Hindi or English improbable.
• No motive was shown. Dying declaration may have been fabricated.
• The site was not properly preserved. The cleaning of the terrace suggested the possibility of suicide or accident.
• No eyewitness or material evidence linked the accused to the murder.

State

• The dying declarations were consistent, voluntary, and medically endorsed.
• The cleaning of the terrace and the failure of Didar Singh (husband) to accompany his wife to the hospital were incriminating.
• The lack of traces of accidental fire indicates foul play.
• Dying declaration to a doctor has high evidentiary value.

Court’s Analysis

The Court emphasised the legal principles surrounding dying declarations and their sufficiency to convict in the absence of corroboration. The judgments cited clarified that reliability, voluntariness, and mental fitness of the declarant are the core considerations.

On the Dying Declaration

• Both declarations—one to the doctor and one to the IO—were consistent and clearly attributed responsibility to the husband and son.
• Dr. Goel’s MLC report contained a spontaneous disclosure by the deceased.
• The IO ensured a medical certificate of fitness before recording the statement.
• Endorsement by the sister-in-law (bhabhi) present at the time lent further credibility.
• The Court dismissed the language argument, as no evidence suggested the deceased was incapable of communication.

On Procedural Lapses

Although no executive magistrate was called to record the declaration, the Court held that the immediate exigency and critical condition of the victim justified the recording by the doctor and police.

Circumstantial Evidence

The Court listed several incriminating circumstances:

• The deceased was sleeping alone; no cot or bedding found at the spot.
• No evidence of kerosene container, matchbox, or items showing suicide.
• The terrace was cleaned—suggesting destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC.
• Didar Singh did not accompany his wife to the hospital.
• The prosecution’s narrative was consistent and plausible.

Motive

The absence of motive did not weigh heavily, given the direct dying declarations and the burden-shifting principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, once homicidal circumstances were established.

The Court held that:

“Death can either be an accident, a suicide, or a homicide. (...) It is neither an accident nor suicide, leaving only homicide as the possibility.”

Judgment

Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The consistency, credibility, and voluntariness of the dying declaration, along with strong circumstantial evidence, proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

Didar Singh & Anr. v. State is a reaffirmation of legal principles governing dying declarations and their place in establishing guilt when backed by circumstantial evidence. It highlights how a dying mother's last words, delivered under traumatic circumstances, can withstand forensic and evidentiary scrutiny to bring justice even against close kin.

Click Here to Read the Full Judgment

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams