"Man Won't Meet His Maker With A Lie In His Mouth" : Supreme Court Summarizes Principles Regarding Dying Declarations [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has summarized some important principles with regard to the dying declaration in its yesterday’s judgment.

The Bench also cautioned that if the dying declaration does not inspire confidence in the court’s mind, the same should not be acted upon.

It was deciding an appeal against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court convicting six accused in a criminal case.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “In Madan v. State of Maharashtra, while referring to an earlier decision in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar it was observed that a Court must rely on dying declaration if it inspires confidence in the mind of the court. … a note of caution has also been sounded. If such a declaration does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court, i.e., there exist doubts about the correctness and genuineness thereof, it should not be acted upon, in the absence of corroborative evidence.”

M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co. represented the appellants/accused while Advocate V. N. Raghupathy represented the respondent/State.

The Bench stressed upon the basic premise i.e., “nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” which means that “man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.” The court noted these principles:

1. For a statement to be termed a “dying declaration”, and thereby be admissible under Section 32 circumstances discussed/disclosed therein “must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence”
   
2. A dying declaration inspires confidence of the court it can, even sans corroboration, form the sole basis of conviction
   
3. In order to rely on such a statement, it must fully satisfy the confidence of the court, since the person who made such a statement is no longer available for cross examination or clarification or for any such like activity
   
4. If such a declaration does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court, i.e., there exist doubts about the correctness and genuineness thereof, it should not be acted upon, in the absence of corroborative evidence
   
5. It is for the court to determine, from the evidence available on record, the state of mind being fit or not
   
6. In order to make a determination of the state of mind of the person making the dying declaration, the court ordinarily relies on medical evidence
   
7. If witnesses present, while the statement is being made, state that the deceased while making the statement was in a fit state of mind, such statement would prevail over the medical evidence
   
8. Mere absence of a doctor’s certificate in regard to the “fit state of mind” of the dying declarant, will not ipso facto render such declaration unacceptable
   
9. In case of a plurality of such statements, it is not the plurality but the reliability of such declaration determines its evidentiary value
   
10. The presence of a Magistrate in recording of a dying declaration, is not a necessity but only a rule of Prudence- Dying Declaration is not to be discarded by reason of its brevity
    
11. If dying declaration, while being brief, contains essential information, the courts would not be justified in ignoring the same
    
12. Examination of the person who reduced into writing, the dying declaration, is essential, particularly, in the absence of any explanation forthcoming for the production of evidence.
    

In this case, the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In 1997, the deceased and his brothers had gone to the fields to work when, allegedly, all the accused persons armed with weapons such as clubs, iron rods and choppers came and threatened them. The brothers managed to escape but while the deceased, was attempting to do so, he was grievously assaulted by means of iron rod and a steel-edged weapon (chopper). Immediate medical treatment was administered to the deceased at the hospital and consequently, an FIR was registered under several penal provisions.

After due investigation, the challan was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Kolar. All the accused persons denied the charges under Section 120B, 143, 447, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and claimed trial. The accused Nos. 6 and 8 died and therefore, the proceedings against them stood abated. The Trial Court after due consideration of the facts, acquitted all the accused persons. The State, aggrieved by the acquittals, appealed to the High Court, whereby the appeal was partly allowed. The main issue that arose before the Apex Court was with respect to the Dying Declaration of the deceased in this matter.

The Supreme Court after going through the overall facts of the case, considered major principles regarding Dying Declarations. It noted that Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act relates to statements, written or verbal of relevant fact made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found, in other words, dying declaration and summarised the various principles laid down by pronouncements of the court in respect of the same.

“For a statement to be termed a “dying declaration”, and thereby be admissible under Section 32 of IEA, the circumstances discussed/disclosed therein “must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence”. … The Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swamy v. Emperor explained the phrase “circumstances of the transaction”, said the Court.

The Court further referred to the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 in which principles in respect of the application of Section 32 have been noted by the court. It said that numerous judgments held that provided a dying declaration inspires confidence of the court it can, even sans corroboration, form the sole basis of conviction.

“In order to rely on such a statement, it must fully satisfy the confidence of the court, since the person who made such a statement is no longer available for cross-examination or clarification or for any such like activity. … The Court must be satisfied that at the time of making such a statement, the deceased was in a “fit state of mind”. In Shama v. State of Haryana, a fit state of mind has been held to be a prerequisite, alongside the ability to recollect the situation and the state of affairs at that point in time in relation to the incident, to the satisfaction of the court”, also noted the Court.

Furthermore, the Court observed that in order to make a determination of the state of mind of the person making the dying declaration, the court ordinarily relies on medical evidence, however, equally, it has been held that if witnesses present, while the statement is being made, state that the deceased while making the statement was in a fit state of mind, such statement would prevail over the medical evidence.

“It has also, however, been held in Laxman (supra) that the mere absence of a doctor’s certificate in regard to the “fit state of mind” of the dying declarant, will not ipso facto render such declaration unacceptable. … In case of a plurality of such statements, it has been observed that it is not the plurality but the reliability of such declaration determines its evidentiary value”, said the Court.

The Court held that ocular evidence undoubtedly fares better than other kinds of evidence and is considered evidence of a strong nature and the principle is that if the eyewitness testimony is “wholly reliable”, then the court can base conviction thereupon, which applies even in cases where there is a sole eyewitness. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion in this case, saying that it emanates from the testimony of the doctor and police officer that the dying declaration of the deceased was made in their presence.

“It further emanates from the record, i.e., the testimony of PW19 that although he signed on the dying declaration made by the deceased, but the cross-examination reveals that he had not himself written the same. … 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. The Doctor also does not state that the injured was in a condition to sign. Then why the thumb impression, remains a mystery casting a serious doubt about its authenticity or correctness of such declaration”, added the Court.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants.

Cause Title- Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 978)

Click here to read/download the Judgment