As per case facts, Suman suffered burn injuries, initially giving a dying declaration (DD1) attributing it to an accident. Later, she gave a second dying declaration (DD2), alleging dowry harassment ... and that her husband and his brothers set her on fire, explaining DD1 was given under threat. She succumbed to injuries. The husband's brothers, Ved Parkash and Jagdish, appealed their conviction for dowry death and cruelty, arguing DD1 was reliable and DD2 was influenced. The question arose whether the second dying declaration, which contained allegations of dowry death and murder and contradicted the first, could be reliably used as the sole basis for conviction, considering the inconsistencies and the influence claimed by the victim. Finally, the High Court upheld the conviction, finding DD1 unreliable due to circumstances and the victim's explanation in DD2 of prior intimidation. DD2 was considered credible and self-explanatory, forming the basis for upholding the guilt of the appellants, and the appeal was dismissed.