When Multiple Contradictory Dying Declarations Are Recorded, One Given To Magistrate Must Be Relied Upon: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has reversed and set aside a conviction order after 35 years, acquitting the surviving accused out of the total three accused who were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in 1989.The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that in case of multiple dying declarations which are contradictory to one another, the statement recorded by a Magistrate or a higher officer can be relied upon keeping in mind the elements of truthfulness and being free of suspicion that are required to rely upon dying declarations. “This Court also observes that when multiple dying declarations were recorded, and inconsistencies/contradictions were found therein, then 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.”The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted in a murder case in 1989. It was the case of the appellant that the deceased in the case had given a dying declaration to the assistant sub-inspector in which he had named the 3 accused including the appellant. On the basis of this dying declaration, FIR was registered pursuant to which another dying declaration was recorded in front of the Magistrate in which the deceased named completely different persons as accused who were not prosecuted by the police. The trial court ignored the second dying declaration and based on the statement given to the police, and convicted the appellant along with two other accused. The counsel for the appellant argued that in light of clear contradictions between the two dying declarations, they were not trustworthy. Furthermore, the persons named in the second dying declaration, recorded in front of the Magistrate, were not prosecuted or investigated. Hence, it was contended that the judgment of the trial court was not justified in law. Agreeing with the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, the Court observed that when the two dying declarations came into the picture, the prosecution story was itself in doubt. The Court made reference to certain Supreme Court cases on multiple dying declarations. In the case of Anmol Singh v State of MP it was ruled that if there were inconsistencies between multiple dying declarations, the Court was required to examine the materiality of such inconsistencies in light of various surrounding facts and circumstances. Further, in the case of Lakhan Singh v State or MP, the Supreme Court held that in case of multiple inconsistent dying declarations, the one recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate could be relied upon, provided that there was no suspicion regarding the truthfulness of that dying declaration. Reference was also made to the case of Abhishek Sharma v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) wherein certain principles on dealing with a case involving multiple dying declarations were laid own and the following was observed: “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…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.”In the background of this analysis, the Court observed that in light of contradictory dying declarations in the present case, the trial court's reliance on the dying declaration recorded before the police was not justified in law especially when the law was settled that in case of multiple contradictory dying declarations, the one recorded before the Magistrate was to be considered. The Court held that after inconsistencies/contradictions were recorded in a case, other corroborative evidence was required. In the present case, there was no strong corroborative evidence, to support the claim of the prosecution that the dying declaration recorded by the police was reliable, and not the one as recorded by the Magistrate.Accordingly, the conviction order was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. Title: Jeet Singh v StateCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 179Click Here To Read/Download Order

When Multiple Contradictory Dying Declarations Are Recorded, One Given To Magistrate Must Be Relied Upon: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags