Principles Relating To Dying Declaration : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court held that corroboration of the dying declaring statement isn't required when it inspires the confidence of the court to convict the accused. “The law relating to dying declaration is now well settled. Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring. Once such a conclusion is reached, a great deal of sanctity is attached to a dying declaration and as said earlier, it can form the sole basis for conviction.”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said.Referring to precedents, the Court summarised the principles relating to dying declaration as follows :(i) it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated;(ii) each case must be determined on its own facts, keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made;(iii) it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence;(iv) a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence. It has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing weighing of evidence;(v) a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character;(vi) in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view various circumstances including the condition of the person concerned to make such a statement; that it has been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties.The court clarified that the minor inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses deposing the correctness of the dying declaration would not prove fatal to the prosecution if the prosecution witnesses' statements were in convergence to the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor. The appellant contested their conviction based on the fact that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' evidence, therefore the dying declaration couldn't be relied upon to convict the appellant. Refuting such contentions, the Court accepted the deceased declaration as a valid piece of evidence. “The contents of the dying declaration have been proved by PW-6, PW-12 and PW-13. Though there are certain inconsistencies in their evidence, it is quite natural. Moreover, those are not material and do not affect the sub-stratum of her statement. The incident had occurred on 22.07.2002 with the dying declaration recorded on the same day within a couple of hours whereas the evidence was tendered in court by the above witnesses after 5 years. Such inconsistencies are bound to be there. In fact, identical statements by the material witnesses may create doubt in the mind of the court about the credibility of such evidence, as being tutored. That being the position, we are inclined to accept the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex. 59) as a valid piece of evidence.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed. Accordingly, the court noted that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the dying declaration of the deceased which has been proved in evidence as the attending doctor has certified that the deceased was capable of narrating her statement. Moreover, the substance of the dying declaration is also borne out by the medical history of the patient recorded by the doctor which has also been proved in evidence. “That being the position, the evidence on record, particularly Ex. 59, clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.”, the court observed. The appeal was dismissed, holding that the appellant was guilty of committing the offence which was proved beyond all reasonable doubt.Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rucha A. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Raavi Sharma, Adv.Case Title: RAJENDRA S/O RAMDAS KOLHE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRACitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 406Click here to read/download the judgment

Principles Relating To Dying Declaration : Supreme Court Explains

Yash Mittal

Tags