Evidence – Dying declaration, sole basis of conviction – Appellants convicted for offences punishable u/ss.302 and 34, Penal Code, 1860 – Correctness:
Held: Dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court – Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination – There cannot be an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless corroborated – Rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence – Where the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true, voluntary, free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and it is coherent and consistent, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration– Material placed on record revealed that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination – Dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) was cogent, consistent, trustworthy and reliable to base the conviction on the same – No reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact that the dying declaration was true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement – No legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction without there being any independent corroboration – However, in the dying declaration, the motive attributed by the deceased was to accused No.1-deceased’s devar who she had a quarrel over partition of the house and the role of pouring kerosene on the victim and setting her ablaze was also attributed to him – Insofar as accused No.2 (wife of accused No.1) and her brother-accused No.3 are concerned, the statement of the victim only states that they aided accused No.1 however, no specific role of how they assisted him could be found in the dying declaration – Thus, the said dying declaration can be the sole basis of maintaining the conviction of accused No.1 – Accused No. 2 and accused No.
3 entitled to the benefit of doubt and are acquitted – Impugned judgment upholding the conviction and sentence in respect of the said appellants is quashed and set aside – Appeal qua accused No.1 is dismissed. [Paras 7, 11, 14-16]
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.