2023 Supreme(SC) 1059

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Abhishek Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1473 of 2011
Decided on : 18-10-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Multiple dying declarations – All dying declarations should be consistent – Inconsistencies between such statements should be ‘material’ for its credibility to be shaken.
(2) General rule for appreciation of evidence rendered by an interested witness is that same should be corroborated by other independent evidence.
(3) Evidence of interested witnesses is not necessarily unreliable evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Multiple dying declarations – Primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in a fit state of mind – All dying declarations should be consistent – Inconsistencies between such statements should be ‘material’ for its credibility to be shaken – Each declaration must be scrutinized on its own merits – In presence of inconsistencies, medical fitness of person making such declaration, at relevant time, assumes importance along with other factors such as possibility of tutoring by relatives, etc. – A dying declaration is not to be discarded on account of brevity, but it must contain proximate cause of deceased’s condition and reason therefor. (Paras 9.1 to 9.7 and 17)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – There is no particular identification of convict-appellant, nor is there a mention of means through which injuries were inflicted (Petrol) – General rule for appreciation of evidence rendered by an interested witness is that same should be corroborated by other independent evidence – Considering nature of statement made by deceased to mother, independent corroboration is difficult – Reliance on the same would prejudice convict-appellant, and same cannot be justified – Convict-appellant was not seen at spot of crime, nor has last seen theory been invoked by prosecution – Apart from alleged dying declarations of deceased, there is no evidence on record to point to guilt of convict-appellant – Placing gauntlet of guilt upon convict-appellant based on dying declarations when no other material particulars, apart from his name, could be elicited therefrom would be unjustified – Appeal allowed. (Paras 17, 26, 30, 34, 35 and 36)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of interested witnesses is not necessarily unreliable evidence – Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony – It cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can only form basis of conviction if corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence – All that is necessary is that evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution – Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or close relative to deceased if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. (Paras 24 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal impugns a judgment and order of conviction passed by High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2009 dated 31st May 2010, confirming Appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 , as awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide Judgment dated 30th April 2009.

Findings of Court:

When considering other circumstances that may or may not point to guilt of convict-appellant, we find gaps unexplained in prosecution case, which cast sufficient doubt as to leave case short of threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.

Result : Appeal allowed.