Honble BANERJEE, J.–Admissibility of a dying declaration has had judicial scrutiny for over five decades. Whereas the earlier view in Ramnaths case Ramnath Modhoprasad and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1) to the effect that it is not safe to convict an accused person merely on the evidence furnished by a dying declaration without further corroboration, a larger Bench judgment of this Court in Tarachand (Tarachand Damu Sutar vs. The State of Maharashtra (2) categorically observed that conviction based on dying declaration, against the correctness, of which no cogent reasons have been given or suggested, is sustainable in law.

(2). This Court, a decade later in Munnu Raja and Another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (3) stated the law to the effect that though the dying declaration must be approached with caution for the reason that the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to cross-examination, there is neither a rule of law nor a rule of prudence which has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. This Court went up to observe that the court must not look out for corroboration unless it comes to the conclusion that a dying declaration suffered from any infirmity.

(3). One of the latest pronouncement of this Court pertaining to the subject find place in the decision of Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar (4) wherein, this court observed that apart from the care and caution factors as noticed earlier the dying declaration ought otherwise to be treated as trustworthy. The issue thus becomes as to whether the dying declaration has been able to bring about a confidence thereon or not - is it trustworthy or it is a mere attempt to cover up the latches of investigation: it must allure to the satisfaction of the court that reliance ought to be placed thereon rather than a distrust: The confidence of the court is the summumbonum and in the event of there being any affirmation thereto in the judicial mind, question of any disbelieve or distrust would not arise. In the event however of there being some infirmity, howsoever, negligible it be, the Court unless otherwise satisfied about the credibility thereof, ought to look for some corroboration, if however it is otherwise, question of requirement of a corroboration would not arise: dying declaration alluring confidence of the court would be a sufficient piece of evidence to sustain conviction. There is no format as such of dying declaration neither the declaration need be of any longish nature and neatly structured. As a matter of fact, perfect wording and neatly structured dying declaration may bring about an adverse impression and create a suspicion in the mind of the court since dying declarations need not be drawn with mathematical precision the declarant should be able to recollect the situation resulting in the available state of affairs.

(4). Having dealt with the basic issue involved in the matter and adverting to the factual score, be it noted that against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, two separate appeals being Crl.A.No.64/1989 (Panchdeo Singh vs. State of Bihar) and the other Crl.A. No. 65/1989 (Dun Bahadur Singh vs. State of Bihar), the High Court by a common judgment affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the court below. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad convicted the appellant herein under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Sriram Singh and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for life. The accused was further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years on each count though, however, sentence were directed to run concurrent. The High Court dealt with both the appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document