The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, emphasizing the need for voluntariness, truthfulness, and fitness of the declarant to make the statement.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction dated January 9, 2012 and the order of sentence dated January 10, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Uluberia, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 168 of 2010.

2. By the impugned judgement of conviction, the learned Trial Judge has found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence learned Trial Judge has sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the prosecution did not examine any eye witness to the incident of murder. He has contended that, the prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove the charge of murder as against the appellant. According to him the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant, conclusively.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, 11 out of 24 prosecution witnesses turned hostile at the trial. The prosecution had failed to establish the presence of the appellant at the place and time of occurrence of the murder. None of the prosecution witnesses had seen the appellant at the place of occurrence.

5. Referring to the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, three persons suffering from burn injuries were removed to the hospital. He has referred to the evidence of PW 4 and contended that, such witness stated in examination-in-chief that, the female victim was not in a position to talk with any other persons.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the victim suffered 100 per cent burn injuries. The female victim had allegedly made a dying declaration although, she had suffered 100 per cent burn injury. He has pointed out prior to the alleged dying declaration being made by the female victim, PW 4, who had assisted in transporting the victims to the hospital, including the female victim, had stated that, the female victim was not in a position to talk with any other person.

7. Referring to the dying declaration, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the same cannot be treated as a valid dying declaration by the female victim. He has contended that, the dying declaration was not marked as an exhibit at the trial. Moreover, the bed head ticket of the female victim showed that the female victim had been administered a number of medicines at the hospital. He has contended that, given the nature of the 100 per cent burn injury suffered by the female victim and the nature of the medicine administered, at best the female victim was in a state of delirium, making the so called dying declaration suspicious and at the very least unreliable to base a conviction.

8. Referring to the dying declaration learned advocate for the appellant has contended that, such dying declaration does not contain a certificate from the doctor concerned to the effect that the female victim was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration. He has contended that, the dying declaration was unreliable and that, conviction should not be based on so called dying declaration. In support of his contention he has relied upon 1976 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 618 (K. Ramachandra Reddy and Another vs. The Public Prosecutor), 1983 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 411 (Darshan Sinigh alias Bhasuri and Others vs. State of Punjab), 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 211 (Panchdeo Singh vs. State of Bihar), 2002 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 56 (Ramilaben Hasmukhbhai Khristi and Another vs. State of Gujarat), 2009 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases 498 (Kantilal vs. State of Rajasthan), 2010 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Atbir vs. Government of NCT of Delhi) and 2014 Volum