The Supreme Court has strongly asserted that minor discrepancies do not create any dent in the credibility of the dying declaration, if it is voluntary, truthful and reliable, and it was recorded by a competent authority at a time when the deceased was conscious, oriented and capable of making a statement.
The Apex Court also ruled that when the dying declaration itself refers to persistent matrimonial discord and ill-treatment thereby furnishing a plausible background for the commission of the offence, the prosecution is not required to establish motive with mathematical precision and failure to conclusively prove motive does not weaken an otherwise reliable and cogent case.
The Court therefore held that the High Court fell into manifest error by reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court, based on a re-appreciation of evidence that was contrary to settled legal principles, discarding crucial evidence on speculative grounds and placing undue reliance on testimonies of hostile and defence witnesses.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh was allowed, the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court was set aside, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court were restored.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that conviction under Section 302 IPC can be based solely on a dying declaration if the court is satisfied that it is voluntary, truthful, and reliable; corroboration is a rule of prudence, not law.
The Bench also observed that a dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate in a proper manner stands on a much higher footing than an oral declaration, and the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon only to the extent it is corroborated by other reliable evidence.
The Bench held that motive assumes significance primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence, such as a credible dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
The Bench reiterated that while it is ordinarily cautious in interfering with an acquittal, it is permissible and imperative to do so where the High Court’s decision is based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence, a perverse approach, or results in a gross miscarriage of justice.
Lastly, the Bench observed that the initial report (Rukka/FIR) not naming the assailant does not discredit the subsequent, lawfully recorded dying declaration. An FIR is not an encyclopaedia, and the family’s immediate concern would have been the victim’s survival.
Briefly, the prosecution’s case is that on December 7, 2009, the respondent, Chaman Lal, poured kerosene on his wife, Saro Devi (the deceased), at their residence and set her on fire with a matchstick. The couple, who had a love marriage and three children, had a strained relationship, with the respondent often quarrelling with the deceased and suspecting her character. Though, villagers and the respondent attempted to extinguish the fire, but the deceased sustained severe burn injuries. She was taken to the District Hospital, by her brother, where an FIR was registered against the respondent under Section 302 of the IPC. On the same day, the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, recorded the statement of the deceased, which was treated as a Dying Declaration. In her statement, the deceased stated that her husband had set her on fire after calling her a “Kanjri” (a woman of bad character).
The deceased was later moved to Tanda Medical College and Hospital, and subsequently taken home by her brother, as there was no chance of improvement. She later succumbed to her injuries. The Sessions Judge found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, and convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000. The High Court, however, set aside the trial court’s conviction, and acquitted the respondent by extending the benefit of doubt.
Appearances:
AOR Abhishek Gautam and Advocate Vivek Kumar, for the Appellant
AOR Krishna Pal Singh, along with Advocates Mohan Singh Bais, Seemab Qayyum, and Anvita Aprajita, for the Respondent
