Dying Declaration Based on Third-Party Interpretation Fails Evidentiary Scrutiny: Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused

In a significant ruling concerning the integrity of criminal evidence, the Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of Raees Ahmad, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and acid attack of his niece. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Madan Pal Singh, underscored that a dying declaration, if fundamentally compromised by procedural irregularities and lack of independent clarity, cannot serve as the sole basis for a criminal conviction.

The Tragedy at Bijnor

The case originated from a horrific incident occurring in December 2016, where the victim, Farheen, suffered fatal acid burns. The prosecution alleged that the victim’s father, Raees Ahmad, along with an accomplice, Nabi Hasan (who passed away during the trial), orchestrated an acid attack to erase her identity following a familial dispute over the victim's romantic interests.

However, the trial court’s conviction rested entirely on a shaky foundation: the testimony of hostile prosecution witnesses and a single, controversial dying declaration.

The Problem with the "Voice of the Relative"

The crux of the appeal rested on the validity of the dying declaration recorded by the Naib Tehsildar on December 5, 2016. During cross-examination, the Naib Tehsildar admitted that the victim was unable to speak audibly due to severe injuries. Consequently, he had summoned an unidentified female relative into the room to interpret the victim’s sounds and dictate the statement.

The High Court identified this as a catastrophic failure in legal procedure. Because the identity of the relative was never recorded, and the process of interpreting the victim’s incoherent sounds occurred without independent verification, the court deemed the document a "useless piece of evidence."

Arguments and Legal Scrutiny

The defense counsel argued that since the key witnesses—including the victim’s mother and uncle—turned hostile and denied the prosecution's story, there was no credible evidence left. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal and anr. , the defense argued that a statement reflecting the "voice of another" cannot be elevated to the level of a dying declaration.

Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the prosecution failed to put the specific circumstance—that the dying declaration was mediated by a third party—to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC ). Citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra , the Court agreed that any circumstance not put to the accused in a Section 313 statement must be excluded from consideration.

Key Observations from the Bench

The High Court expressed grave concern over the lack of scrutiny applied by lower authorities:

> "A mechanical approach in relying upon a dying declaration just because it is there is extremely dangerous."

Regarding the procedural failure to document the mediation process, the Court noted:

> "The dying declaration could not be relied upon for convicting the appellant."

Adding to the complexity of the case, the judges observed that the failure to confront the accused with the procedural defects in the record was fatal to the prosecution's case:

> "When this circumstance was not put to the accused then the dying declaration could not also be used as an evidence to come to a conclusion against the accused."

Final Verdict: A Return to the Rule of Law

The High Court concluded that in the absence of a reliable dying declaration and the collapse of the ocular testimony, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances required for conviction.

The judgment dated February 19, 2020, was quashed and set aside, and the appellant, Raees Ahmad, was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed his immediate release, provided he was not required in any other ongoing criminal proceedings. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to investigative agencies and magistrates that the sanctity of the dying declaration is not merely a formality but a mandatory threshold of justice that cannot be compromised by convenience or outside interference.

---

Legal Precedents Cited: * Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958): Established that a dying declaration lacks an absolute rule of law for corroboration but must be judged by surrounding circumstances. * Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal and anr. (2003): Clarified that responses dictated by a relative cannot be elevated to the level of a true dying declaration. * Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984): Confirmed that circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used against them.