The Supreme Court has observed that conviction of an accused can be solely based upon the dying declaration without corroboration if the Court is satisfied that it is true and voluntary.
The division bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed the same while restoring the conviction of the murder accused recorded by the Trial Court.
Brief Facts of the Case
The present appeal has been filed by State aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court, acquitting the accused for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the High Court ought to have relied upon and considered the dying declaration recorded by the competent magistrate as it would have stood on a higher footing than the declaration made to IO under Section 161 of Cr.PC.
It was submitted that as such cogent reasons were given by the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence that the statement before the IO which was considered to be first dying declaration does not inspire any confidence whereas finding recorded by the Trial Court was on appreciation of available evidence on record more particularly the medical evidence.
Reliance was placed on Koli Chunilal Savji & ANR Vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 Latest Caselaw 373 SC, Jagbir Singh V. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 Latest Caselaw 804 SC, Ravi Chander & Ors. V. State of Punjab (1998); Harjit Kaur V. State of Punjab (1999); Vikas & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra (2008); Laxman V. State of Maharashtra (2002)
The High Court had specifically observed tha both the dying declarations cannot be believed and it was not safe to rely upon multiple dying declarations of the deceased in the absence of any corroborative evidence.
It was submitted that the same is contrary to the law laid down in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & ANR Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 Latest Caselaw 156 SC, Munnu Raja & ANR Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Latest Caselaw 283 SC, Amol Singh V. State of M.P., (2008) and there can be conviction on the basis of a dying declaration of the deceased without there being any corroborative evidence on record. It was thus submitted that as such the High Court has not doubted the credibility and/or has not observed anything with regard to malice on the part of the executive magistrate who recorded the statement, it ought to have upheld the conviction relying on the same.
Supreme Court Observation
The Court at the outset noted that in the present case, there are two dying declarations, one recorded by the Police Officer on and another was recorded by the Magistrate/SDM and as per High Court, none of them inspire confidence.
The High Court has not believed the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM mainly on the ground that when the dying declaration was already recorded by the Police Officer, there was no reason to record the second dying declaration. However, the one recorded by the Police Officer was the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. and therefore, it was thought fit to record the dying declaration of the deceased by the Magistrate, the Court stated.
Whether on the basis of such dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM, the accused can be convicted or not?
The Court answered the above in affirmation and briefed the neccessary parts of the judgements in Laxman V. State of Maharashtra (2002), wherein it was observed that observed that the Magistrate being a disinterested witness and a responsible officer and there being no circumstances or material to suspect that the Magistrate had any animus against the accused or was in any way interested for fabricating a dying declaration, question of doubt on the declaration, recorded by the Magistrate does not arise.
The Court mentioned that in Jagbir Singh V. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 Latest Caselaw 804 SC Court had an occasion to consider the law relating to the dying declaration and the problem of multiple dying declarations in detail. It was observed and held that merely because there are two/multiple dying declarations, all the dying declarations are not to be rejected. It was observed and held that when there are multiple dying declarations the case must be decided on the facts of each case and the court will not be relieved of its duty to carefully examine the entirety of the material on record as also the circumstances surrounding the making of the different dying declarations.
Whether in absence of any corroborative evidence, there can be a conviction relying upon the dying declaration only ?
The Court referred to the rulings in Munnu Raja & ANR Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 Latest Caselaw 283 SC, Smt. Paniben Vs. State of Gujarat, 1992 Latest Caselaw 88 SC wherein it was observed and held that there is neither a rule of law nor of prudence to the effect that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without a corroboration. It is observed and held that if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration.
Similar views were taken in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Sagar Yadav & Ors, 1985 Latest Caselaw 6 SC, Ramawati Devi V. State of Bihar.
The Court went onto discuss the watershed judgment on the law on the evidentiary value of dying declarations, Kushal Rao Vs. The State of Bombay, 1957 Latest Caselaw 78 SC wherein the deceased had given three successive dying declarations within a span of two hours, which were, to a certain degree contradictory to each other. However, one of the aspects that remained common and was narrated by the deceased in all three dying declarations was that he was attacked by two persons, namely Kushal Rao and Tukaram with swords and spears. Supreme Court, relying on the common thread running through all dying declarations, which was consistent with medical evidence revealing punctured and incised wounds on various parts of the body, held that the said declarations could be relied upon in convicting the accused who had been named in all three dying declarations.
In view of the above and all other observations, the Court noted:
The Court therefore concluded that Trial Court has rightly observed as to the weight and reliance that must be placed on the dying declaration of the deceased and that there was no reason for the High Court to disregard the dying declaration of the deceased. The impugned judgement and order was accordingly quashed.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
