Issue for consideration
The victim-deceased gave four dying declarations. High Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment u/s. 302 IPC as awarded by the trial Court. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Multiple dying declarations – Prosecution case that appellant and victim had a quarrel, as the victim had affection for their boss and not for appellant – Appellant took victim to an open site near a school and in the midst of an argument, set her on fire – Victim died – Victim had given four dying declarations – Appellant convicted by the Courts below – Propriety: Held: The DD-I shows that it was recorded in the third person, as PW-16-ASI had reported incident – The statement before the court is that the operator came into ‘DO room’ and reported that PW-16 had found a girl burning, and it is to him that she stated that appellant, had done this to her – Had the statement of the deceased, as told to PW-16, been before the court as it is, the same could have been considered a dying declaration within the meaning of s.32 IEA – DD-II is, in fact, an entry in the Medico-Legal Inquiry Register made by PW-8-doctor – It is true that a dying declaration is not to be discarded on account of brevity, but it is equally true that it must contain the proximate cause of the deceased’s condition and the reason therefor – Here, it states the presence of burn injuries and says that the same was caused by appellant, which, arguably, is insufficient – There is no particular identification of the convict-appellant, nor is there a mention of the means through which the injuries were inflicted (petrol) – DD-III was made to PW-17-SI – Despite this being the third statement given, no attempt was made to have the same made before a doctor or magistrate, which, as a rule of prudence, lends support to the prosecution – It reflects from the record that at the time when the third statement was recorded, the deceased had been administered treatment for her injuries – However, it has not come forth as to the nature of treatment and what kind of medicines were given to her – In the absence of a positive statement by the medical team responsible for her treatment, it cannot be stated, with certainty, that the medicines administered had no effect of impairing the mental fitness of the deceased – Therefore, doubts surrounds DD-III – DD- IV is the statement of the deceased to her mother – When making the declaration, there is nothing on record to indicate a) further deterioration in condition and b) non-availability of a third party, such as a doctor before whom such a statement could be recorded – The lack of independent corroboration, particularly when the person making the statement is the mother of the deceased, the court cannot rule out, to a positive degree, the role played by a sense of loss and possibly even anger, to rely on such statement – Besides the alleged dying declarations, there is no evidence to point to the guilt of the convict-appellant – On perusal of the records, there are inconsistencies throughout – There are gaps unexplained in the prosecution case. [Paras 15, 16, 17, 19, 26]
Headnote
Dying Declaration – Multiple dying declarations – The Court to consider the following principles, when dealing with a case involving multiple dying declarations:
Held: 1. The primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in a fit state of mind; 2. All dying declarations should be consistent – In other words, inconsistencies between such statements should be ‘material’ for its credibility to be shaken; 3. When inconsistencies are found between various dying declarations, other evidence available on record may be considered for the purposes of corroboration of the contents of dying declarations; 4. The statement treated as a dying declaration must be interpreted in light of surrounding facts and circumstances; 5. Each declaration must be scrutinized on its own merits – The court has to examine upon which of the statements reliance can be placed in order for the case to proceed further; 6. When there are inconsistencies, the statement that has been recorded by a Magistrate or like higher officer can be relied on, subject to the indispensable qualities of truthfulness and being free of suspicion; 7. In the presence of inconsistencies, the medical fitness of the person making such declaration, at the relevant time, assumes importance along with other factors such as the possibility of tutoring by relatives, etc. [Para 9]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Kamla v. State of Punjab (1993) 1 SCC 1; State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 769: [2005] 9 SCC 769; Amol Singh v. State of M.P. (2008) 5 SCC 468: [2008] 8 SCR 956; Lakhan v. State of M.P (2010) 8 SCC 514: [2010] 9 SCR 705; Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1019; Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 224: [2013] 1 SCR 115; Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 8 SCC 779: [2019] 11 SCR 1137; Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576 – relied on.
Read the full headnote (3 more paragraphs)
Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 265: [2008] 2 SCR 959; Chacko v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 112; P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443: [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 745; Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 173: [2011] 12 SCR 1205; Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22: [1958] SCR 552; Hari Obula Reddy and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1981) 3 SCC 675; Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444: [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 633 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India.
Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs),
CC BY 4.0.
