Evidence – Dying declarations – Sole basis of conviction – When not justified – Appellant had strained relationship with his son (victimdeceased) from his first marriage and his two brothers (victimsdeceased), all of whom, as per the prosecution, were opposed to his second marriage – He is said to have locked the door of the room from outside in which the victims were sleeping, poured kerosene in the room and set it on fire – Dying declarations of two of the deceased persons relied upon – Legality:
Held: Courts are first required to satisfy themselves that the dying declaration in question is reliable and truthful before placing any reliance upon it – Dying declaration while carrying a presumption of being true must be wholly reliable and inspire confidence – Where there is any suspicion over the veracity of the same or the evidence on record shows that the dying declaration is not true it will only be considered as a piece of evidence but cannot be the basis for conviction alone – In the instant case, neither the two dying declarations nor the oral evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 inspire any confidence – Both these witnesses do not figure in the two dying declarations – The two dying declarations are not consistent or rather contradictory to the oral evidence on record – Although, the appellant was named in the two dying declarations as a person who set the room on fire yet the surrounding circumstances render such statement very doubtful – Difficult to rest the conviction solely based on the two dying declarations – Prosecution has not proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 47, 61, 64, 67-69]
Criminal Law – Charge against accused – Duty of prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt:
Held: It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt – The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused – Dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that it was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind – It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant – Evidence – Dying declaration. [Para 63] Evidence – Dying declaration – Acceptability – Theory: Held: The juristic theory regarding the acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth – Notwithstanding the same, great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to it on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth – The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement – It is for this reason, the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with – Since, the accused has no power of cross-examination, the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness – However, the court should always be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. [Para 43]
Evidence – Dying declaration – Reliance upon – Factors to be considered – Duty of the Court:
Held: Despite a general consensus of presuming that the dying declaration is true, they have not been stricto-sensu accepted, rather the general course of action has been that judge decides whether the essentials of a dying declaration are met and if it can be admissible, once done, it is upon the duty of the court to see the extent to which the dying declaration is entitled to credit – Thus, there is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted – Duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same – Factors to be considered, enumerated. [Paras 60 and 62]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.8 – Conduct:
The conduct of the accused may be unnatural because he was residing in the very same house, however, the conduct which may be a relevant fact u/s.8, by itself may not be sufficient to hold a person guilty of the offence of murder – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302. [Para 46]
Evidence – Dying declaration – Sanctity/presumption attached to – Justification for:
The justification for the sanctity/presumption attached to a dying declaration is two fold- (i) ethically and religiously it is presumed that a person while at the brink of death will not lie, whereas (ii) from a public policy perspective it is to tackle a situation where the only witness to the crime is not available. [Para 64]
Evidence – Dying declaration – Suspicion as regards correctness of – Duty of Court:
It is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying declaration alone in the cases where suspicion, like the case on hand is raised, as regards the correctness of the dying declaration – In such cases, the Court may have to look for some corroborative evidence by treating the dying declaration only as a piece of evidence – The evidence and material available on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. [Para 48]
Practice and Procedure – Criminal appeals filed against concurrent findings – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Discussed. LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 : [1977] 1 SCR 280; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710; Muthu Kutty & Anr. v. State by Inspector of Police, T.N. (2005) 9 SCC 113 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 222; Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 465 : [2007] 10 SCR 347; Bhajju alias Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327 : [2012]
5 SCR 37; Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 : [2013] 3 SCR 830; Dharm Das Wadhwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1974) 4 SCC 267: [1974] 3 SCR 607 – relied on.
King v. William Woodcock (1789) 1 Leach 500 : 168 ER 352; Neville Nembhard v. The Queen (1982) 1 AII ER 183 – 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.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.