Victim's Own Brothers Turned Hostile: MP High Court Acquits Man Convicted Of Setting Wife Ablaze

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench has acquitted a man earlier convicted of setting his wife ablaze, holding that the trial court could not have sustained a conviction when the victim's own dying declaration stood squarely contradicted by witnesses who were her real brothers and had no reason to shield the accused.

A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla was hearing a criminal appeal filed against a judgment of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior, dated February 16, 2021, which had convicted the appellant, Roopsingh, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Gomti Bai, sentencing him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 3,000.

The incident took place on the night of November 2, 2017. According to the prosecution, Gomti Bai had cooked only rotis for dinner without any vegetables, which allegedly infuriated the appellant. He is said to have quarrelled with her, threatened to kill her, and then poured kerosene on her before setting her on fire. Gomti Bai suffered almost 100 percent burn injuries and was rushed to the Surgery Department of Jaya Arogya Hospital, Gwalior. Significantly, the appellant too was admitted to the same department with 30-35 percent burn injuries. Gomti Bai succumbed to her injuries on November 9, 2017, following which an FIR was registered on May 13, 2018, after a merg enquiry.

Dying declarations of both the victim and the appellant were recorded a day after the incident by Naib Tahsildar Kuldeep Dubey. While Gomti Bai's declaration named the appellant as the person who set her on fire, the appellant's own dying declaration, marked Ex.P/22, stated that his wife had set herself ablaze following the quarrel and that he sustained burns while trying to douse the flames.

The bench noted that the prosecution had examined 16 witnesses, of whom seven, including the victim's mother, siblings, sister-in-law and son, were declared hostile for failing to support the prosecution's case even minimally. Of these, the testimony of the victim's brother Babbu, whom Gomti Bai had named in her dying declaration as present at the scene and as the person who brought her to hospital, was found to be crucial. Despite being projected as an eyewitness, he did not support the prosecution version at all.

The court also pointed to the testimony of another brother, Ramhet, who had brought the appellant to hospital, and who told the trial court that Gomti Bai's sari had caught fire while she was cooking, and that the appellant was burnt while trying to save her. The bench observed that Ramhet's own prior statements were inconsistent, having stated during the merg enquiry that Gomti Bai poured kerosene on herself, and during investigation that the appellant had poured it on her, before departing from both versions in his court testimony to describe the fire as accidental. A similar pattern of inconsistency was noted in the statements of the victim's son, Shekhar.

The bench held that "being the real brothers of deceased Gomti Bai, these two witnesses would naturally have greater affinity and loyalty towards Gomti Bai than towards the present appellant, yet, they did not support the version given by their sister in her dying declaration." It further recorded that there was "virtually no explanation on the part of prosecution about the injuries sustained by the appellant in the incident," and that, in view of the dying declaration running contrary to the eyewitnesses' account and the completely hostile testimony of the victim's close relatives, the conviction could not be confirmed.

Allowing the appeal, the court discharged the appellant's bail bonds forthwith and directed that any fine amount deposited by him before the trial court be refunded. A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent back to the trial court for compliance.

Advocate Atul Gupta appeared for the appellant, while Government Advocate B.K. Tyagi represented the State.

Case Title: Roopsingh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Judgment: September 3, 2026

Bench: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla