The Bombay High Court has held that a dying declaration holds a “sacrosanct status” and can be the sole basis for conviction if the court is satisfied that it is true, voluntary, and made in a fit mental condition, without any need for corroboration. While corroboration is expedient, it is not an absolute rule of law. The Court said that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, provided that the witness is found to be of “sterling quality”, meaning their evidence is unassailable, consistent, and inspires confidence.
For a recovery to be admissible, the Court observed that the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others, but whether the object was “ordinarily visible to others”. If an article is concealed in a way that its location is within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, the recovery is valid.
Further, the Court opined that if an accused fails to avail the opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them during their examination under Section 313 CrPC., the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference. Accordingly, finding that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat placed significant weight on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to his brother. It observed that the statement, where the deceased named “Doli” as his assailant, was “lucid and clear” and free from ambiguity. The Bench noted that the defence could not discredit this testimony during cross-examination.
The Bench found prosecution witness to be a “wholly reliable witness” of “sterling quality”. His testimony was further strengthened by his statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, which corroborated his deposition in court and was surprisingly not challenged by the defence during cross-examination.
The Bench observed that the prosecution successfully established a motive for the crime, which was the illicit relationship between the deceased and the Appellant’s wife. The Bench also invoked the legal maxim “nemo moritus praesumitur mentire” (a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth) to support the truthfulness of the dying declaration.
Further, the Bench found the Appellant’s explanation for the 10 injuries on his person to be improbable. The Appellant claimed the injuries were sustained from a running loom at his factory, but one prosecution witness testified that the factory was not operational that day due to a power cut. The medical evidence also suggested the injuries were possible during an assault with a sharp object.
Although the trial court had doubted the recovery of the knife because it was sent for analysis in an unsealed condition, the Bench observed that the recovery itself was credible. It noted that the knife was recovered at the Appellant’s instance from under a stone, a place not “ordinarily visible to others”, making the recovery valid under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, even if the location was accessible.
Lastly, the Bench noted the Appellant’s failure to provide any explanation for why he was being “falsely implicated”, and concluded that while an accused has the right to remain silent, the Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the failure to explain incriminating circumstances.
Briefly, the prosecution’s case is that the deceased, Vasudev, was having an illicit affair with the wife of the Appellant, Doli Ravidas. This relationship led to quarrels between the two men, which resulted in the deceased moving out and starting to live separately. On one fateful day, the deceased’s brother, was waiting for the deceased near his workplace for his night shift. After hearing shouts, he ran towards the sound to discover his brother lying on the ground with a knife injury to his stomach. Upon being asked, the deceased said that he was assaulted by the Appellant with a knife.
Subsequently, the police arrived and took the deceased to IGM hospital, where he was declared dead, after giving dying declaration. An offence was registered against the Appellant, and after investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The Sessions Court convicted the Appellant for murder under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Appearances:
Advocates Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar and Sonali R. Chavan, for the Appellant
APP Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, for the Respondent/State
