‘Great Caution Needed’: Supreme Court Lists Out Factors To Be Considered While Relying On Dying Declarations
Case: Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 825-826 of 2022
Court Observation: “It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.”
“It is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying declaration alone in the cases where suspicion, like the case on hand is raised, as regards the correctness of the dying declaration. In such cases, the court may have to look for some corroborative evidence by treating the dying declaration only as a piece of evidence. The evidence and material available on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.”
“In the present case, it is difficult to rest the conviction solely based on the two dying declarations. We are not satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant-convict beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, allow these appeals and acquit the appellant-convict of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant-convict is, therefore, directed to be released forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case or cases.”
“On overall assessment of the materials on record, we have reached to the conclusion that neither the two dying declarations inspire any confidence nor does the oral evidence of the [two eyewitnesses] inspire any confidence. Had the dying declarations stood corroborated by the oral evidence, then probably, it would have been altogether a different scenario. However, the two dying declarations are not consistent or rather contradictory to the oral evidence on record.”
“…on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason, the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of cross-examination, the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however, should always be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination.”
“The reason is that in the case on hand, although the appellant-convict has been named in the two dying declarations as a person who set the room on fire yet the surrounding circumstances render such statement of the declarants very doubtful. It may be true as said by this Court that the rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of the legitimate inferences flowing from the evidence, circumstantial or direct. Even applying this principle, we have a doubt as regards the complicity of the appellant-convict in the crime. In the present case, it is difficult to rest the conviction solely based on the two dying declarations.”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Great Caution Needed, ‘Great Caution Needed’: Supreme Court
