Dying declarations and confessions made to the police are not admissible in evidence unless they are made voluntarily and are corroborated by other evidence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 34 IPC - DYING DECLARATION - RELIABILITY - PROCEDURE FOR RECORDING - SECTION 161 CRPC - STATEMENT TO POLICE - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 162 CRPC - CONFESSION TO POLICE - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCY OF FACTS - SECTION 32(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - CONFESSION CAUSED BY THREATS OR INDUCEMENTS - SECTION 154 CRPC - FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - SECTION 164 CRPC - CONFESSION BEFORE MAGISTRATE - SECTION 313 CRPC - STATEMENT OF ACCUSED - SECTION 103 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCY OF CONFESSION MADE TO A POLICE OFFICER - SECTION 25 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - CONFESSION TO A POLICE OFFICER NOT TO BE PROVED AGAINST ACCUSED - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Dipak Bajaj and Baliram Bajaj, were convicted of murdering Jyoti Bajaj, Dipak's wife and Baliram's daughter-in-law, by pouring kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire. The prosecution relied on dying declarations made by Jyoti to her mother, brother, and a magistrate, as well as a statement made by Dipak to the police.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dying declarations were not reliable because they were not made at the earliest opportunity, were not corroborated by other evidence, and were recorded in a confusing and unreliable manner. The court also found that the statement made by Dipak to the police was not admissible because it was not made voluntarily.
Issues: 1. Whether the dying declarations were reliable. 2. Whether the statement made by Dipak to the police was admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the dying declarations were not reliable because they were not made at the earliest opportunity, were not corroborated by other evidence, and were recorded in a confusing and unreliable manner. 2. The court held that the statement made by Dipak to the police was not admissible because it was not made voluntarily.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants, and acquitted them of the charge levelled against them.

JUGDMENT - M.K. MUKHERJEE, C.J. :---For committing the murder of Jyoti Dipak Bajaj in furtherance of their common intention, her husband Dipak Baliram Bajaj (appellant No. 1) and her father-in-law Baliram Nichaldas Bajaj (appellant No. 2) have been convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Thane, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Aggrieved thereby they have filed the present appeal.

2. Jyoti (the deceased) was given in marriage to the appellant No. 1 by her mother Saraswati (P.W. 2) two years before her death. Since marriage, she was living in Camp No. 5, Ulhasnagar along with her husband and father-in-law, while her mother and brother Nandlal (P.W. 4) were living in Camp No. 4.

3. On July 28, 1989, at or about 1.00 a.m. the appellant No. 1 went to the house of P.W. 2 and reported that Jyoti had set herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body and sustained injuries. He requested her to accompany him and bring Jyoti back to her house for treatment and assured her that all expenses thereof will be borne by him. She then, accompanied by appellant No. 1, went to her house followed by her son Nandlal. On seeing the condition of Jyoti, they arranged her removal first to the Sarvanand Hospital and then to the Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar, where she succumbed to her injuries in the following evening.

4. According to the prosecution case, immediately after Jyoti was admitted in the Central Hospital, a message of her admission and for recording her statement was communicated to the Hill Line Police Station by the hospital authorities. On receipt of that message PSI Bhosale (P.W. 1) of Hill Line Police Station reached the hospital along with Ramesh Makhija (P.W. 6), a Special Executive Magistrate. After Dr. Ingale (P.W. 7) Medical Officer of the hospital certified that Jyoti was fully conscious and fit to make a statement, the Magistrate recorded her statement. As the statement disclosed that the two appellants had poured kerosene oil on Jyoti's body and set her on fire, P.S.I. Bhosale registered a case against them under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis thereof, took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge-sheet against them under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them; and during their examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure both of them stated that Jyoti committed suicide by setting herself on fire for she did not wish to live with the appellant No. 1 in view of the illicit intimacy she developed with one Kanhayalal.

6. That Jyoti died owing to burn injuries stands established by uncontroverted overwhelming evidence on record. Such evidence need not be detailed and discussed as the appellants have also admitted that Jyoti died due to burn injuries. Such being the state of things obtaining on record, the only point that falls for our consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove that the appellants in furtherance of their common intention, set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body.

7. In absence of any eye-witness the prosecution to prove this part of its case relied solely upon the dying declarations made by Jyoti to her mother Saraswati (P.W. 2) and brother Nandlal (P.W. 4) and the Shri Makhija., (P.W. 6) which was reduced into writing.

8. Law is now well settled that if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is a truthful version as to the circumstances of death and identity of assailants, it can be made the basis of conviction, even though it is not corroborated. In other words, if the dying declaration inspires confidence, the Court can safely act upon the same without insisting upon any corroboration there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis