SC Upholds Life Term for Gujarat Woman Who Set Niece-in-Law on Fire

The Supreme Court on October 29, 2025 upheld the life imprisonment of a Gujarat woman who was convicted of burning her niece-in-law alive over a domestic dispute in 2004, stating that the trial court had erred in dismissing credible evidence on “minor discrepancies".

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed one Jemaben’s appeal against a 2016 Gujarat High Court judgment that overturned her acquittal and found her guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the night of November 29–30, 2004, in Banaskantha district, when the victim, Leelaben, was asleep with her four-year-old son. Jemaben, her aunt-in-law, allegedly poured kerosene over her and set her on fire. Leelaben sustained 100% burns and died five days later, while her son suffered 10–12% burn injuries.

The motive, the prosecution said, was that Jemaben had been pressuring Leelaben to go with a man named Mania Dabhawala, and her refusal led to the fatal attack.

The trial court had acquitted both accused in 2005, citing contradictions in three dying declarations made by the deceased. However, the High Court later convicted Jemaben, relying heavily on the first statement Leelaben gave to a doctor at Palanpur Civil Hospital, in which she named her aunt-in-law as the attacker.

The Supreme Court noted that the first dying declaration was “clear, voluntary, and corroborated by physical and medical evidence". Dr. Shivrambhai Nagarbhai Patel, who treated the victim, testified that Leelaben was conscious and clearly stated that her aunt-in-law poured kerosene and set her ablaze. The hospital’s medical certificate and the panchnama from the scene confirmed the presence of kerosene and an empty container.

Rejecting the defence’s claim of accidental fire, the court said the burn pattern and the child’s minor injuries showed that only the mother had been targeted. “The theory of accidental fire at the place of incident cannot be believed,” the bench observed.

Court added that “minor discrepancies” among multiple dying declarations did not justify discarding the first, reliable statement. "Merely because there are minor discrepancies in the version given by the prosecution witness with regard to the dying declaration and to the manner of occurrence of the incident, the first dying declaration given by the deceased before the independent witness, the doctor, cannot be ignored", court said.

Upholding the High Court’s reasoning, the bench cited the decision rendered by the apex court in the case of Nallam Veera Stayanandam & Ors Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, (2004) and reiterated that each dying declaration must be assessed independently on its own merit.

Concluding that the High Court “rightly set aside the erroneous acquittal,” the Supreme Court confirmed Jemaben’s life sentence and dismissed her appeal.

Case Title: Jemaben Vs The State of Gujarat

Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vipul M. Pancholi

Judgment Date: October 29, 2025