Evidence – Dying declaration, allegedly made to a close relative – Reliance upon – When not proper – Respondents were convicted inter alia relying on the dying declaration allegedly made to the mother of the deceased (PW-8) – Conviction set aside by High Court – Correctness: Held: Oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness – Dying declaration is not a strong piece of evidence and therefore, when it is verbal and that too, allegedly made to a close relative, it ought to be treated with care and caution – In the present case, the trial Court dealt with the same without due care and caution – Prosecution attempted to establish the existence of an oral dying declaration through the evidence of PW-8, the mother of the deceasedinformant – However, neither in the FIR nor in her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., PW-8 stated about the oral dying declaration made to her by the deceased – Except her statement in the Court there is no evidence in that regard – High Court justified in taking note of the serious omissions in the oral testimony of PW-8 and discrediting it – Further, the eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-17 did not support the case of the prosecution and also the omissions on part of PWs 5 and 9 (minor brothers of the deceased) amounted to material contradiction going into the core of the prosecution’s case – In view of the omissions and contradictions, the oral testimonies of the witnesses are not reliable – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt – Respondents entitled to benefit of doubt, acquitted – Judgment of the High Court not interfered with. [Paras 17, 20, 27-30]
Criminal Law – FIR:
Held: FIR is an important document but, not a substantial piece of evidence – Even though it is not an encyclopedia containing chronicle of all intricate and minute details, it could be used to corroborate its maker viz., the informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Evidence Act to establish whether he is a trustworthy witness or not – Whether the omission(s) is one which seriously impeaches the credibility of the witness and is sufficient to reject the testimony of the informant would depend upon whether it is of an important fact and whether that fact was within the knowledge of the informant. [Paras 14, 15] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374 – Appeals from convictions – Acquittal – Appeal against acquittal – Interference with, when – Discussed. [Paras 6, 7, 8]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.