The Supreme Court while hearing an appeal upheld High court’s conviction in a Murder case after finding one of the two dying declarations more reliable. The court relied on various cases where there were multiple dying declarations and remarked “each dying declaration has to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other.”
Factual Background
The deceased was married to the appellant for 9 years during which the deceased was subjected to mental cruelty and dowry demands. One day the appellant and the deceased had a fight after which the appellant poured kerosene oil on the wife and lit the fire. The deceased was taken to the hospital where her dying declaration was recorded by the investigating officer in which the deceased stated that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and lit her on fire. It was alleged that the victim had given another dying declaration prior to that in which she admitted that the whole burn injury was caused by accident. The charges under section 498A, 302 and 34 of IPC were framed against the appellant in the Sessions court. The court, upon finding contradictions in two dying declarations acquitted the appellant after which the state filed an appeal in the Karnataka High court. The High court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused after which the appeal was made in the Hon’ble Apex court.
Appellant’s Contentions
The counsel for appellant submitted that the High court had made an error in reversing the original decision of the trial court. The counsel contended that the high court had failed to evaluate the evidence correctly and haven’t considered the fact that the subsequent dying declaration was contradictory to the first one and that the second statement could be a tutored one. The counsel further added that the appellant had tried to extinguish the fire during which he suffered bun injuries on his right arm too which proves there was no intent to harm the deceased. After making the above pleadings the counsel requested that the court reverse the High court’s verdict and acquit the appellant.
The Court’s Findings
The division bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah observed that the High court had made no error in reversing the acquittal since it had correctly evaluated both of the dying declarations and the evidence on record. The court opined that the high court correctly relied upon the subsequent dying declaration after finding that the statement was well supported with evidence on record and the given circumstances. The court noted that the appellant in her second statement clarified that she lied in the first one because of threats from the appellant and told the truth in the subsequent statement after she got courage from her parents to tell the truth.
The court relied on various cases where there were multiple dying declarations and remarked “this Court had an occasion to consider the cases where there are multiple dying declarations. In the aforesaid decisions, it is held that each dying declaration has to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. It is also held that the Court has to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflects the true state of affairs. When there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated on its own merits.”
The court stated that after considering the law and the facts the subsequent statement was true and reliable since it was supported by the medical evidence and the injuries of the deceased. The court further commented that the accused trying to extinguish the fire after setting the dceased ablaze would not save him from Murder charge and said “merely because the accused might have tried to extinguish the fire will not take the case out of the clutches of clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC. The act of the accused pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze by matchstick is imminently dangerous which, in all probability, will cause death. Therefore, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.”
After making the above observations the court decided to not interfere with the High court’s order and upheld the appellant’s conviction.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :