February 22, 2019:

On Tuesday, Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Dinesh Maheshwari, of Hon'ble Supreme Court concurs with the judgment of the High Court that trial court erred in presuming, Investigation Officer in collusion with the doctor wilfully fabricated the 'dying declaration'.

Trial Court in the present case assumes that the Investigation officer in collusion with the doctor wilfully fabricated the 'dying declaration'.

Supreme Court observes, "....the courts cannot expect a victim like the deceased to state in exact words as to what happened during the course of the crime..... It would be very difficult for such a victim, who has suffered multiple grievous injuries, to state all the details of the incident meticulously and that too in a parrot­ like manner...."

The Bench states that the Investigation Officer and the doctor are independent public servants and are not related either to the accused or the deceased. It is not open for the Trial Court to cast aspersions on the said public officers in relation to the dying declaration, more particularly when there is no supporting evidence to show such fabrication.

The Bench also expounds, "there is no absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated by other evidence."

A dying declaration, according to the apex court, "....if found reliable, and if it is not an attempt by the deceased to cover the truth or to falsely implicate the accused, can be safely relied upon by the courts and can form the basis of conviction."

More so, where the dying declaration is supported and corroborated by other prosecution evidence, there is no reason for the courts to doubt the truthfulness of such dying declaration.

It is highlighted by the court that the doctor, who recorded the statement of the deceased which was ultimately treated as his dying declaration, has fully supported the case of the prosecution by deposing about recording the dying declaration. He also deposed that the victim was in a fit state of mind while making the said declaration.

The Bench observes that there is no material to show that the victim was tutored or prompted by anybody so as to create suspicion in the mind of the Court. Moreover, in the present case the evidence of the eyewitnesses has been corroborated by the dying declaration in all material particulars.

As per the Bench, the High Court, after re-appreciation the entire evidence before it, has rightly come to an independent and just conclusion of setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

The Bench concurs with the judgment of the High Court, that the view taken by the Trial Court was not plausible in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and has set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

Read Judgment @ LatestLaws.com

LALTU GHOSH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL_19-Feb-2019(Downloadable PDF)

Share this Document :

Picture Source :