Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations: Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court recently laid down the principles to be followed in cases where there are multiple dying declarations. The Court delved into the circumstances where the extent of burn injuries was considered when evaluating the credibility of dying declarations. The Court also clarified that evidence given by interested witnesses should be corroborated by an independent witness. In this case, the deceased was set on fire and died due to multiple burn injuries and the appellant was booked for murder under section 302, IPC. The Court pointed out that none of the dying declarations conclusively incriminated the accused. Moreover, the Court found inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case which led to the acquittal of the appellant.It observed “Considering the aforementioned factors, placing the gauntlet of guilt upon the convict-appellant based on dying declarations when no other material particulars, apart from his name, could be elicited therefrom would be unjustified. Furthermore, when considering other circumstances that may or may not point to the guilt of the convict-appellant, as discussed above, we find gaps unexplained in the prosecution case, which cast sufficient doubt to leave the case short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment which had confirmed the life imprisonment sentence of the appellant in a murder case under section 302 IPC.In the present case, the appellant (Abhishek Sharma) was accused of murdering his colleague Mandeep Kaur(deceased) on the intervening night of September 20th and 21st, 2007.In the Trial Court, all four dying declarations made by the deceased were found to be consistent, voluntarily given, and reflective of her sound mental condition at the time. As a result, the appellant was found guilty and convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court, upon appeal, agreed with the Trial Court's findings, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of its lack of merit.Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.Since the prosecution's case relied heavily on the deceased's alleged dying declarations, the Court began by appreciating the various principles of law laid down by this court in respect of cases involving multiple dying declarations. In the case of Kamla v. State of Punjab (1993) 1 SCC 1, the Court emphasized that when inconsistencies arise between different dying declarations, the nature of these inconsistencies, whether material or not, must be examined.In situations where two different dying declarations exist, the Court in State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 769 had expressed that serious doubts arise concerning their truthfulness. If reliable corroborative evidence is available, it should be considered to test the credibility of the dying declarations.The Court further discussed the case of Amol Singh v. State of M.P.(2008) 5 SCC 468, which held that inconsistencies between multiple dying declarations must be assessed in the context of surrounding facts and circumstances. This scrutiny enables the Court to determine which declaration holds more value in specific scenarios.In cases of multiple dying declarations, the Court referred to Lakhan v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 514 which was also cited recently in Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677. The Court had held that when several dying declarations are presented, and inconsistencies are apparent, the declaration recorded by a higher-ranking officer, such as a Magistrate, is generally considered more reliable, provided that no circumstances raise suspicion about its truthfulness.The Court referred to Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 224 which highlighted that when multiple dying declarations exist, each must be assessed independently based on its own merit. Inconsistencies between declarations should not automatically lead to their rejection.The Court relied on Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 8 SCC 779, where the Court held that if inconsistencies are reconcilable, the Court looks at other material on record. The Court also categorized cases into three groups: cases with reconcilable inconsistencies, cases with irreconcilable inconsistencies, and cases with diametrically opposed dying declarations.The Court further referred to Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576, where it was emphasized that when handling cases with multiple dying declarations, the court should scrutinize the evidence to determine which declaration aligns with other material evidence, such as medical reports and the physical and mental state of the deceased.Principles to be followed in cases of Multiple Dying DeclarationAfter a thorough discussion, the court laid down the principles to be considered in cases of multiple dying declarations as follows-Voluntary and Reliable Statements: All dying declarations must...

Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations: Supreme Court Explains

Suraj Parmar

Tags