Credible Dying Declaration Devoid Of Any Tutoring Can Form The Sole Basis For Conviction: Supreme Court

The Bench explained that once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the Court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, the Court must be “satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring.”, it added.

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring. Once such a conclusion is reached, a great deal of sanctity is attached to a dying declaration and as said earlier, it can form the sole basis for conviction.”

Sr. Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhary represented the appellant, while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande appeared for the respondent.

A husband was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC after he bound the hands and feet of his wife, a police constable, gagged her, and then set her on fire using kerosene.

After noting the dying declaration of the police constable, the Bench noted the role played by the husband and the brother-in-law in the incident which led to her burn injuries. The Court stated that the contents of the dying declaration were proved by various witnesses as well.

“It is evident that in her dying declaration Rekha clearly stated about the role played by the husband (appellant) and the brother-in-law in the incident which led to her burn injuries. The contents of the dying declaration have been proved…Though there are certain inconsistencies in their evidence, it is quite natural…Such inconsistencies are bound to be there. In fact, identical statements by the material witnesses may create doubt in the mind of the court about the credibility of such evidence, as being tutored. That being the position, we are inclined to accept the dying declaration of the deceased as a valid piece of evidence,” the Court stated.

Though there were several inconsistencies in the evidence presented, the Court stated it to be “quite natural” as it did not affect the sub-stratum of the statement of the deceased.

The Bench noted that the dying declaration of the deceased female police constable was recorded on the same day of the incident which led to her burn injuries, but the evidence was tendered in court by the above witnesses after 5 years. However, the Court pointed out that such inconsistencies were bound to happen or else it might create doubt in the mind of a Court about the credibility of the evidence being tutored.

As per Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 statements made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found etc., be it in written form or oral, were in themselves relevant facts.

The Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the dying declaration of the deceased which has been proved in evidence including the attending doctor certifying that the deceased was capable of narrating her statement. “The substance of the dying declaration is also borne out by the medical history of the patient recorded by the doctor which has also been proved in evidence,” the Court added.

“There is however convergence with the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor. That being the position, the evidence on record, clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Court held that the husband was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was directed to surrender before the trial court.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 422)

Appearance:

Appellant: Sr. Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhary; AOR Vatsalya Vigya; Advocate Rucha A. Pandey

Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna and Raavi Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment