Dying declaration alone sufficient for conviction without verification or corroboration: Supreme Court

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2020 passed by the in Criminal Appeal No. 4658 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the accused for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC the State has preferred the present money and when she refused there was an assault and investigation. He recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses and collected the necessary evidence including the medical evidence. After completion of investigation Investigating Officer filed the charge­sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 302 read with accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty 2.2 To prove the charge against the accused the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. PW­5 turned hostile The prosecution also brought on record documentary the police officer and another recorded by the Magistrate SDM. On appreciation of evidence and the kerosene on her is not believable considering the medical evidence on record. Thereafter the learned Trial 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced the Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and the accused preferred the appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.4658 2015. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that there were two dying declarations one recorded on 20.12.2011 and another recorded on 22.12.2011 and there was a gap of two days Commissioner of Agra and by disbelieving both the dying declarations has acquitted the accused by observing that Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC the State has preferred the present 5. Ms. Garima Prashad learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused for the 5.1 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence that the statement before the IO which was considered to be first dying declaration on 20.12.2011 does not inspire any confidence. It is submitted that the aforesaid finding 5.3 It is submitted that the High Court ought to have appreciated that the dying declaration recorded by a the declaration made to IO under Section 161 of Cr.PC SCC 545 Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. V. State of Court has specifically observed that both the dying declarations cannot be believed and it is not safe to rely upon multiple dying declarations of the deceased. It is 2008) 5 SCC 468 Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Anr. V. State of Andhra Pradesh conviction on the basis of a dying declaration of the 5.5 It is submitted that in the present case the High Court has erred in not relying upon the dying declarations more particularly the dying declaration recorded by the the part of the executive magistrate who recorded the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate SDM on 5.6 It is hence submitted that the impugned judgment and The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri P.S Khurana learned counsel appearing on behalf of the by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original on 20.12.2011 thereafter there was no reason to record No.1 father­in­law in her first dying declaration dated burning and in the second dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate there was a somersault and the victim deceased implicated all other family members the High 6.3 It is submitted that on appreciation of evidence the High is submitted that therefore in such a state of mind and because of the fear of her father­in­law that she will be acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under 7. Making the above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the At the outset it is required to be noted in the present case Officer on 20.12.2011 and another recorded by the Magistrate SDM recorded on 22.12.2011. Even in the specifically observed that none of the dying declarations inspire confidence. The High Court has not believed the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate SDM on 22.12.2011 mainly on the ground that when the dying declaration was already recorded by the Police Officer on declaration. However it is required to be noted that what statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. Therefore it was of repetition it is observed that even the High Court has specifically observed that the first statement dying inspire any confidence. In that view of the matter it is required to be considered whether the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate SDM the accused can be 9.1 While considering the aforesaid question issue a few decisions of this Court on the credibility of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate are required to be 9.1.1 In the case of Laxman after referring to and considering the earlier decisions on the credibility of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate it was against the accused or was in any way interested for fabricating a dying declaration question of doubt on the 9.1.2 In the case of Jagbir Singh this Court had an occasion to consider the law relating to the dying in detail. It was observed and held that merely because there are two multiple dying declarations all the dying declarations are not to be rejected. It was observed and held that when there are multiple dying declarations the case must be decided on the facts of each case and the the entirety of the material on record as also the circumstances surrounding the making of the different dying declarations. Ultimately in paragraph 32 this Court “Our conclusion on multiple dying more than one dying declaration and in the earlier dying declaration the accused is not sought to be roped in but in the later dying declaration a somersault is made by the duty to carefully examine the entirety of materials as also the circumstances surrounding the making of the different dying declarations. If the court finds that the incriminatory dying declaration brings out the truthful position particularly in conjunction made which involves no doubt ruling out tutoring and prompting and also the other evidence which support the contents of the the earlier dying declaration worthy or case of Ravi Chander & Ors.Harjit KaurKoli Chunilal Savji & Anr. and Vikas & Ors 10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid on record with regard to any allegation against the Magistrate SDM to the effect that he was biased or interested in recording the dying declaration against the accused. He was summoned during the course of investigation and during the course of investigation he recorded the dying declaration and the statement of credibility of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate SDM on the ground of malice. The reasoning given by the High Court to not rely upon the dying and cannot be accepted. We see no reason to doubt the due to the feud over demanding money respondents the Magistrate on 22.12.2011 the respondents original that they poured kerosene on her. At this stage it is herself on blaze is concerned considering the medical evidence on record the said statement dying declaration recorded by the Police Officer on 20.12.2011 does not hospital as nothing is on record that the door was broken opened by the father­in­law accused and medical evidence on record and the injuries sustained by committed suicide by pouring kerosene there would have 10.1 Now on the aspect whether in absence of any corroborative 1992) 2 SCC 474 are required to be referred to. In the that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without a corroboration. It is observed and held that if the Court is 10.2 Kushal Rao V. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22:1958 SCR 552 is a watershed judgment on the law on the the following principles as to the circumstances under which a dying declaration may be accepted without Full Bench of the Madras High Court aforesaid that it cannot be laid down as a general of evidence than other pieces of evidence that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as to the principles governing the weighing of evidence is to say in the form of questions and answers and which may suffer from all the infirmities of human of the dying man for observation for example whether night whether the capacity of the man to remember his control that the statement has been consistent dying declaration apart from the official record of it opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by The relevant facts of the said case are that the deceased therein had given three successive dying declarations within a span of two hours which were to a deceased in all three dying declarations was that he was thread running through all dying declarations which was consistent with medical evidence revealing punctured and said declarations could be relied upon in convicting the accused who had been named in all three dying Co­relating the said facts to the facts of the instant case we have noted that although the accused was not specifically named by the deceased in her statement thread in the statements of the deceased being that she was attacked by the accused­respondent herein. Further are at such parts as could have resulted when a person other than the deceased poured kerosene and set fire. As already noted if the deceased had set herself on fire her chest ought to have been burnt. In light of the aforesaid that the medical evidence is consistent with the dying the deceased. There was no reason for the High Court to that the dying declaration was made by the deceased to Sub­Divisional Magistrate Bal Kishan Agarwal who capable of comprehending the questions put forth by the value of the dying declaration is further enhanced by the fact that it was accompanied by a certificate from the stating that the deceased remained fully conscious while making the statement. The Trial Court rightly placed statements made by the physician as to the medical condition of the deceased while making such declaration 11. Therefore considering the dying declaration recorded by the SDM Magistrate on 22.12.2011 the accused can be High Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the High Court acquitting the accused for the offences present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused for the offences punishable the learned Trial Court convicting the accused for the of the IPC is hereby restored. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10 000 ­ each as awarded by the learned Trial Court Accused to surrender before concerned court or jail authority to undergo life sentence forthwith. The present

Summary: A dying declaration can be used as a reason and sole basis for convicting a person without needing to corroborate or verify such declaration was upheld by the Supreme Court of India through a bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MR SHAH and HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE BV NAGARATHNA in the case of State of UP v. Veerpal &amp; Anr. (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   34 OF 2022). Brief facts of the case are that an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Allahabad High Court’s decision acquitting the accused in a murder case. The case concerned the bride cremation, in which the deceased was battered by his father-in-law, who demanded money from him. When they refused, they poured kerosene on it and set it on fire. He later died in a hospital. The prosecution recorded two dying declarations, one recorded by the police officer and the other by the magistrate. The court that held the hearing evaluated the same as well as the medical evidence and convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court acquitted the defendants mainly on the grounds that there were two dying declarations, one that was recorded before police on 20.12.2011, and another on 22.12.2011 and that there was a gap of two days between the two dying declarations. When she refused to give her mother-in-law the money, they tried to beat her and she ran away. Under pressure that she may have poured kerosene on herself. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered two issues which are,the multiplicity of dying declarations and whether the dying declarations would be the basis for conviction in the absence of the dying declarations without verification. The counsel on behalf of the state contended in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court made a serious mistake by acquitting the accused of serious crimes pursuant to Article 302, read with Article 34 of IPC. In the present case, the Supreme Court should have trusted and evaluated the dying declaration recorded by the competent magistrate. There were convincing reasons given by the trial court, on its assessment of the evidence of the testimony before IO, which is considered the first dying declaration dated 20.12.2011 does not inspire confidence. The counsel on behalf of the accused contended that in view of multiple dying declarations, the Supreme Court rightly acquitted the accused. There was no need to record another dying declaration on 22.12.2011. In the first dying declaration recorded on 20.12.2011, he stated that he committed suicide out of fear of his father-in-law and that the role given to his father-in-law was suicide. The first dying declaration dated 20.12.2011 was to chase after him only to beat, not to burn, and in the second dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, he rolled over and blamed the victim – all other family members who passed away, the Supreme Court rightly decided. He refused to rely on the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM. The deceased was mentally weak and committed suicide, so no murder case can be made. The Apex court held that a dying declarations can be the basis for a conviction without any corroboration. Just because there are multiple dying declarations, not all of them can be denied. The judge is an impartial witness,the question of doubting the dying declarations recorded by the judge does not arise. Defendants acquitted by Allahabad for Bride cremation were convicted by the High Court, High Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Based on judgments in the Paniben (Smt) v.State of Gujarat and Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay, if court is convinced that the dying declarations is valid, can base its conviction on it without proof if it is true and voluntary. Appropriately, the Court also relied on precedents to conclude that the fact that there were multiple dying declarations could not be a reason to reject all dying declarations.