The Allahabad High Court recently overturned a murder conviction based on the reasoning that the trial court had relied on the dying declaration of the deceased to convict the accused without presenting it to the accused during his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to seek his explanation.
A division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam noted that the accused was unable to address a crucial circumstance as he was never confronted with the incriminating details of the dying declaration, which served as the foundation for the conviction.
Brief Facts:
The Court was deliberating on an appeal challenging a verdict dated November 30, 2016, issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. The judgment convicted Rameshwar Lal Chauhan (the appellant-accused) for the crime outlined in Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Trial Court had found him responsible for the death of his wife, as he had poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.
The Trial Court based its conviction of the accused primarily on the dying declaration of the deceased, as the key factual witnesses, including the deceased's father, mother, and brother, did not support the prosecution's account and were deemed hostile.
Contentions by the Appellant:
In the appeal presented before the High Court, the accused's counsel argued that since the factual witnesses did not support the prosecution's version, the Trial Court should not have convicted the accused solely on the basis of the dying declaration without any additional corroborative evidence.
Contentions by the Respondent:
In contrast, the Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) representing the State argued that there is no obstacle in considering the dying declaration of the deceased as valid evidence, even in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Observations of the Court:
Initially, the Court noted that it is well-established that a dying declaration can serve as a basis for conviction if it is deemed credible. However, the Court emphasized that both the fact of making the statement and the truthfulness of the statement need to be established in order to rely on it as evidence. Considering this context, upon scrutinizing the evidence related to the dying declaration, the Court raised doubts regarding the timing of its recording. The Court also observed that there was no record indicating how the doctor determined that the deceased was mentally capable of giving the dying declaration. Additionally, the Court took into consideration the fact that the First Information Report (FIR), which was filed two days after the dying declaration, did not mention anything about the existence of such a dying declaration being recorded.
Furthermore, the Court stated that if the dying declaration is disregarded, there is no remaining evidence in the prosecution's case, entitling the appellant-accused to the benefit of doubt. However, before overturning the conviction, the Court observed that no questions regarding the dying declaration were posed to the appellant during the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In this regard, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Asraf Ali vs. State of Assam (2008) 16 SCC 328, which establishes that Section 313 of the CrPC imposes a responsibility on the Court to inquire or question the accused about any circumstances presented in the evidence against them. Taking these factors into account, the High Court noted that although the trial court had recorded the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, it had neglected to ask questions pertaining to a significant circumstance to the accused during his statement.
The decision of the Court:
The Court overturned the verdict and conviction, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.
Case Title: Rameshwar Lal Chauhan vs State of U.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6920 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Rajeev Kumar Singh,Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi,P.K. Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
