'True & Voluntary' Dying Declaration Can Be Sole Basis For Conviction: Supreme Court

In the matter, the appellant-accused were convicted by the trial court, and the High Court had upheld the conviction on the basis of a deceased-widow’s dying declaration, stating that the accused poured kerosene on her and had set her ablaze.

Accordingly, a bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta while referring to Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi 2010 INSC 491 noted, “…this Court has clearly held that dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court. The Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. It has further been held that, where the Court is satisfied about the dying declaration being true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It has further been held that there cannot be an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. It has been held that the rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. The Court has observed that if after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration”.

In the present matter, the deceased (a widow) was admitted in the District Hospital, Moradabad with 80% deep thermal and facial burns. In her complaint, the deceased had alleged that she had been set ablaze by the accused/appellants who had been pressuring her into entering the profession of immoral trafficking and prostitution. On the basis of the written report an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Pursuant to the investigation, a charge-sheet Charges came to be framed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC where the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The trial court after examining the witnesses and the relevant evidences placed on record found that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine.

On appeal, the same was dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment while upholding and affirming the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.

The appellants thus while raising serious doubts on the veracity of the dying declaration stating that the Discharge Slip of the deceased showed that she was discharged from the District Hospital, on the relevant date at 05:00 pm. Therefore, it was impossible that the dying declaration could have been recorded between 08:48 pm and 09:15 pm (as depicted). Thus, it was argued that the said dying declaration cannot be said to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent so as to base the conviction solely on the basis of the same.

However, refusing to accept the argument, the bench said, “Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) was recorded between 08:48 pm and 09:15 pm and the Discharge Slip (Ext. Ka-7) was issued at 05:00 pm is concerned, no question was put to that effect in the cross-examination of Raj Kumar Bhaskar (PW-5), the then Naib Tehsildar. As such, his testimony, in spite of cross-examination, has gone unchallenged on the material aspect of recording of the dying declaration… It can thus clearly be seen that the material placed on record would reveal that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination”.

Cause Title: Naeem v. State Of Uttar Pradesh [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 169]