'Great Caution Needed' : Supreme Court Lists Out Factors To Be Considered While Relying On Dying Declarations

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, while acquitting a death row prisoner, reiterated that ‘great caution’ must be exercised while placing reliance on dying declarations even as the law attaches a presumption of truthfulness to such statements. The court held – “It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.” This verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Prashant Kumar Mishra after hearing the convict’s plea against the Allahabad High Court confirming the death sentence handed to him by a Uttar Pradesh sessions court in 2017. Irfan, who has now been cleared of all charges, was convicted in the murder of his two brothers and own son. The allegation was that he set them on fire while they were sleeping and locked them in the room. This, the prosecution claimed, was fuelled by disagreements over Irfan’s intention to get married a second time. While the three were rescued by neighbours and other family members and rushed to the hospital, they eventually succumbed to their injuries, one within two days of being admitted to the hospital, and the other two after less than a fortnight. The police, however, managed to record the dying declarations of two of the three victims, which became the central hinge of the prosecution’s case. On the basis of the two dying declarations, the sessions court arrived at a guilty verdict, which was later upheld by the Allahabad High Court in 2018 after finding no discrepancies in the statements. Despite the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court was not persuaded that a conviction could be sustained based on the dying declarations alone. On dying declarations and their credibility, the court observed – “It is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying declaration alone in the cases where suspicion, like the case on hand is raised, as regards the correctness of the dying declaration. In such cases, the court may have to look for some corroborative evidence by treating the dying declaration only as a piece of evidence. The evidence and material available on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.” Noting the discrepancies between them and other eyewitness accounts, and the absence of other clinching evidence, the Justice Gavai-led bench ultimately overturned Irfan’s conviction and sentence – “In the present case, it is difficult to rest the conviction solely based on the two dying declarations. We are not satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant-convict beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, allow these appeals and acquit the appellant-convict of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant-convict is, therefore, directed to be released forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case or cases.” Arguments by Parties Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing on behalf of Irfan strongly contended that the courts below had made critical errors in holding that his guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt, stressing the prosecution’s excessive reliance on circumstantial evidence, none of which was sufficiently incriminating according to him. The senior counsel also questioned the credibility of the two dying declarations, pointing not only to discrepancies between these statements and the accounts of the two eyewitnesses, but also to the manner in which the dying declarations were recorded. In support of the last contention, Sankaranarayanan highlighted that the dying declarations were not recorded in the prescribed ‘question-answer’ format. He also cited the non-involvement of an executive magistrate in the process and the lack of any indication as to the health condition of the two making these statements. One of them had suffered 95 percent burns, while the other had suffered 80-90 percent burns and both their medico-legal case (MLC) reports noted ‘No BP readable’. Were they even in a fit state to speak in order to give their statements, which were treated as dying declarations after their death, Sankaranarayanan asked the bench. On the other hand, UP Additional Advocate General Ardhendumauli Kumar Prashad contested the appeals, insisting that the lower courts had correctly established the appellant’s guilt. In aid of this contention, he specifically pointed out the significant motive behind the crime, arising out of family conflict ...

'Great Caution Needed' : Supreme Court Lists Out Factors To Be Considered While Relying On Dying Declarations

Awstika Das

Tags