The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that dying declaration must be free from tutoring, prompting, or not be a product of imagination.
Then in relation to the testimony of an eye witness, it was observed that for credibility, such testimony should be of sterling quality.
Therefore, the Bench held that the dying declaration could not be relied upon as there were mysteries around it, further no eye witness was successful in attributing role to the Accused.
Brief Facts:
The deceased along with his brothers was threatened by the Accused Persons. Grievous assault was inflicted.
FIR was lodged and thereafter trial commenced. The Accused were acquitted by the Trial Court. An appeal was preferred before the High Court.
The High Court noted that there was a clear case on the basis of the dying declaration. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and convicted the Accused.
Hence, the present matter.
Observations of the Court:
The entire case rested on the dying declaration and therefore, an examination was undertaken to test the veracity of the same.
The Court observed that the dying declaration was signed by thumb impression by the deceased but, it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was illiterate. This casted mystery about the authenticity of the dying declaration.
It was ruled that dying declaration must be free from tutoring, prompting, or not be a product of imagination.
Then in relation to the testimony of an eye witness, it was observed that for credibility, such testimony should be of sterling quality.
Therefore, the Bench held that the dying declaration could not be relied upon as there were mysteries around it, further no eye witness was successful in attributing role to the Accused.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the decision of the High Court was overturned and the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Manjunath& Ors. V. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 847 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Karol
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 866 Of 2011
Advocates for Petitioner: Adv. Lawyer S Knit & Co.
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. V.N.Raghupathy
Read More @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
