2010 Supreme(SC) 700

2010 (7) Supreme 184
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Lakhan — Appellant
versus
State of M.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2297 of 2009
Decided on : 9-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
In case, there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness- In case, there are circumstances wherein the declaration had been made, not voluntarily and even otherwise, it is not supported by the other evidence, the Court has to scrutinize the facts of an individual case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 302-Prosecution of appellant for causing death of his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed-Appeal- In the instant case, deceased was brought to hospital by her Mother-in-Law and Father-in-Law and she was under their influence and they had tutored her not to give any statement against her family members- The first Dying Declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate, after getting a Certificate from the Doctor, in which deceased did not make allegation against any of her family members, rather, she said that it was an accident- However, such a statement was not supported by medical evidence for reason that injuries on her body were found on the upper part of her body and it was not possible to have such burn injuries in case of the kind of accident as she had disclosed in the first Declaration-The second Dying Declaration was recorded by a Police Officer on the instruction of Superintendent of Police after getting a Certificate of fitness from Doctor, which was corroborated by the medical evidence and free from any suspicious circumstances- Apart from that , it stood corroborated by oral declaration made by deceased to her parents- A kuppi, the container, was recovered by Investigating Officer from the house of the appellant-Deceased, died after about 21 days of recording of second Dying Declaration- Thus, it was evident that she was not in a precarious condition or unable to make the statement-Nothing on record to show for what reason, witnesses would depose falsely against the appellant- No interference called for with Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below -Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 27 to 29)

        Dying Declaration –Probative value of –If the court is satisfied that dying declaration is true and made voluntarily by deceased, conviction can be based solely on it, without any further corroboration- It is neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be relied upon without corroboration.-When a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be relied upon without having corroborative evidence- The court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination- The deceased must be in a fit state of mind to make the declaration and must identify the assailants-Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details of the occurrence, it cannot be rejected and in case there is merely a brief statement, it is more reliable for the reason that shortness of statement is itself a guarantee of its veracity-If the dying declaration suffers from some infirmity, it cannot alone form the basis of conviction- Where the prosecution’s version differs from the version given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (Para 9)

        Dying Declaration –Admissibility of -In case, the Court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and it has not been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for recording conviction -In such an eventuality no corroboration is required.-In case, there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness- In case, there are circumstances wherein the declaration had been made, not voluntarily and even otherwise, it is not supported by the other evidence, the Court has to scrutinize the facts of an individual case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance. (Para 20)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant herein in the instant case was prosecuted for causing death of his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed.

        2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order.

       Findings of the Court :

        In the instant case, deceased was brought to hospital by her Mother-in-Law and Father-in-Law and she was under their influence and they had tutored her not to give any statement against her family members. The first Dying Declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate, after getting a Certificate from the Doctor, in which deceased did not make allegation against any of her family members, rather, she said that it was an accident. However, such a statement was not supported by medical evidence for reason that injuries on her body were found on the upper part of her body and it was not possible to have such burn injuries in case of the kind of accident as she had disclosed in the first Declaration. The second Dying Declaration was recorded by a Police Officer on the instruction of Superintendent of Police after getting a Certificate of fitness from Doctor, which was corroborated by the medical evidence and free from any suspicious circumstances. Apart from that , it stood corroborated by oral declaration made by deceased to her parents. A kuppi, the container, was recovered by Investigating Officer from the house of the appellant. Deceased, died after about 21 days of recording of second Dying Declaration. Thus, it was evident that she was not in a precarious condition or unable to make the statement.Nothing on record to show for what reason, witnesses would depose falsely against the appellant. No interference was called for with Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.