After two decades of incarceration, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted a man convicted for allegedly setting his pregnant wife on fire, finding the motive unbelievable and evidence unsafe. The judgment highlights how weak motives and unreliable dying declarations can wrongly destroy a man’s life for decades.
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court have acquitted Teja Singh (Husband) after 22 years in a case where he had been convicted for allegedly setting his pregnant wife, Virpal Kaur, on fire. The Court found it highly unbelievable that such a serious crime could be committed over a minor family disagreement and held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court had earlier convicted Teja Singh under Section 302 IPC for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His brother Baljit Singh @ Goga was also convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC, but the appeal against him stood abated after his death in 2015. The High Court, however, carefully re-examined the entire evidence and found serious flaws in the prosecution story.
A Division Bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur observed:
“Till further, even the motive on the part of the appellants was very weak to commit such a heinous crime. It was alleged by the prosecution that Virpal Kaur wanted the partition of the property, whereas Teja Singh, appellant No. 1 wanted to reside with his brother Baljit Singh, appellant No. 2 and due to the said grudge, both the brothers had set her on fire. It is highly unbelievable that due to such a trivial dispute, a person would set his own wife on fire, especially when he is not having any dispute with her.”
The Court noted that even the prosecution witnesses admitted that there was no real property dispute between the brothers. Evidence showed that the brothers had already partitioned their land and were living separately. The only issue raised was about providing a separate residence to the deceased. The Court found it difficult to accept that such a routine domestic disagreement could become the motive for murder.
Importantly, the Court relied on the testimony of PW-3 Surjit Kaur, the mother of the deceased, who admitted that Virpal Kaur’s dispute was primarily with Baljit Singh and his wife, not with Teja Singh. This admission weakened the prosecution case further, as it showed that the husband had no clear reason to join hands with his brother to kill his own wife.
The prosecution case rested mainly on an alleged dying declaration recorded on 11 July 2002, in which Virpal Kaur claimed that her husband poured kerosene oil on her and her brother-in-law set her on fire. However, the High Court found the dying declaration unsafe and unreliable.
The Court explained that under law, dying declarations carry weight only when recorded with strict safeguards. It reiterated the settled principle:
“Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire”
which means no person at the point of death is presumed to lie. However, the Court clarified that this principle applies only when the declaration passes strict scrutiny and is recorded in a legally sound manner.
The Bench expressed serious concern over the way the dying declaration was recorded. It was taken by a police officer instead of a Magistrate, without any convincing explanation as to why a Magistrate was not called. The medical endorsement certifying fitness was not written by the doctor himself, but by the investigating officer, with the doctor merely signing it. There was no certificate to show that the deceased remained conscious throughout the recording.
The Court strongly criticised this process and observed that doctors have a crucial legal duty while certifying dying declarations. It noted that the doctor failed to record time, mental fitness, or continuous consciousness, and described the approach as careless and legally unacceptable.
Medical evidence further raised serious doubts. Doctors confirmed that the deceased had suffered nearly 99% burns along with severe respiratory burns. The Court found it highly improbable that a person in such a critical condition could give a long and detailed statement.
The dying declaration also alleged that after setting her on fire, the accused continued beating her. However, no doctor found any marks of beating. Neither the medico-legal report nor the post-mortem supported this allegation, further undermining the credibility of the statement.
Eyewitness evidence also pointed towards a different possibility. PW-8 Ardas Singh and defence witness Rajinder Singh stated that the deceased had bolted the room from inside. They described how the door had to be forcibly opened to rescue her. Photographs placed on record showed a bent door bolt, supporting the defence version.
The Court noted that both these witnesses stated that when Virpal Kaur was rescued, she was unconscious and unable to speak. This directly contradicted the prosecution’s claim that she was in a fit state to give a detailed dying declaration.
Another important factor considered by the Court was the conduct of the accused. Evidence showed that the accused themselves rushed the deceased to the hospital, admitted her to CMC Ludhiana, signed hospital documents, and bore the entire cost of her treatment. The Court observed that such conduct was inconsistent with the behaviour of people who had allegedly attempted to murder her.
The Bench also took note of defence evidence showing prior hostility between the doctor and the accused’s family. It found substance in the argument that the dying declaration could have been influenced or manipulated, especially when family members of the deceased reached the hospital before the statement was recorded.
After analysing the entire evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the trial court had erred in placing blind reliance on an untrustworthy dying declaration and ignoring strong inconsistencies in evidence.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of Teja Singh were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges. The judgment stands as a reminder that criminal law cannot operate on assumptions, emotions, or weak motives, and that prolonged incarceration based on unreliable evidence causes irreversible damage to the lives of accused persons, particularly men entangled in serious criminal allegations without solid proof.
Explanatory Table – Laws and Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose of the Law | How It Was Applied in This Case | Court’s Finding |
| Section 302 IPC | Punishes murder | Trial court convicted husband and brother-in-law for allegedly setting wife on fire | Conviction set aside due to unreliable evidence |
| Section 34 IPC | Acts done with common intention | Used to attribute shared intent between two brothers | Common intention not proved |
| Section 313 CrPC | Allows accused to explain evidence against them | Both accused gave detailed defence statements | Defence version found probable |
| Section 161 CrPC | Police examination of witnesses | Used during investigation | Statements found inconsistent |
| Dying Declaration (Evidence Law) | Statement by a dying person regarding cause of death | Sole basis of conviction by trial court | Held unsafe and unreliable |
| Post-Mortem Evidence | Determines cause of death | Showed 99% burns | Did not support beating allegation |
| Medical Fitness Certification | Confirms mental capacity to give statement | Endorsement written by police, not doctor | Serious procedural lapse |
| Photographic Evidence | Corroborates scene of occurrence | Bent door bolt shown | Supported suicide theory |
| Defence Evidence | Allows accused to rebut prosecution | Neighbours testified door was bolted from inside | Defence version accepted as probable |
Case Details
- Case Title: Teja Singh & Another v. State of Punjab
- Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
- Case Number: CRA-D-564-DB-2004 (O&M)
- Date of Trial Court Judgment: 04.05.2004 (Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa)
- Date of High Court Judgment: 15.01.2026
- Date of Upload: 21.01.2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat & Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
- Appellants: Teja Singh & Baljit Singh @ Goga (appeal abated due to death)
- Respondent: State of Punjab
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate & Ms. Manveer Kahlon, Advocate
- Counsel for State: Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab
- Final Outcome: Conviction and life sentence set aside. Teja Singh acquitted of all charges
Key Takeaways
- A man spent 22 years in prison on a murder charge built on a weak motive and a deeply flawed dying declaration.
- The Court clearly held that trivial domestic disagreements cannot be stretched into proof of murder.
- Blind reliance on dying declarations without strict medical and legal safeguards can destroy innocent lives.
- The accused’s conduct of rushing the woman to hospitals and paying for treatment directly contradicted the prosecution story.
- This case exposes how men can be convicted first and vindicated decades later, after irreversible loss of liberty, dignity, and lifetime.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.