Conviction Can Be Solely Based On Dying Declaration If It Inspires Confidence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the accused can be sustained solely based on the dying declaration if the declaration made by the victim inspires the confidence of the court and proves to be trustworthy i.e., the victim was in a conscious state of mind to make such a dying declaration. “The Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at...
The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the accused can be sustained solely based on the dying declaration if the declaration made by the victim inspires the confidence of the court and proves to be trustworthy i.e., the victim was in a conscious state of mind to make such a dying declaration.
“The Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. It has further been held that, where the Court is satisfied about the dying declaration being true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. The Court has observed that if after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.”, the Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said while referring to Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi.
The conviction of the accused was sustained by the Supreme Court solely based on the dying declaration of the deceased victim who stated that the accused had ablaze her to fire by putting kerosene oil on her.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's and Sessions Court's findings of convicting the accused under Section 302 of IPC.
Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the accused/appellant that the dying declaration made by the deceased victim can't be relied upon to convict the accused as it was recorded when she was discharged by the hospital.
However, rejecting such contention of the accused, the Supreme Court said that the material placed on record would reveal that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination.
“A perusal of the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) would reveal that before recording the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6), the victim was examined by Dr. A.K. Singh, Emergency Medical Officer at District Hospital, Moradabad on 1st December 2016 at 08:45 pm, who has certified her to be fully conscious and fit to give the statement. After the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) was recorded, a certification by Dr. A.K. Singh, Emergency Medical Officer at District Hospital, Moradabad is recorded once again to the effect that the deceased was fully conscious while giving the statement (Ext. Ka-6).”, the court observed.
The Supreme Court found that the dying declaration made by the deceased is cogent, trustworthy, and reliable to base the conviction of the accused as it was free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement.
“The dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) is coherent and consistent and as such, there should be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction without there being any independent corroboration. We find that the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) is cogent, trustworthy and reliable to base the conviction on the same.”, the court said.
Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid observation, the conviction of the appellant/accused was sustained by the Supreme Court.
Counsels For Appellant(s) Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv. Ms. Reena Rao, Adv. Mr. Mohd Adeel Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Adv. Ms. Komal Jha, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Sharan Thakur, AAG Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Mr. Mustafa Sajad, Adv. Ms. Rupali, Adv. Ms. Keerti Jaya, Adv. Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv. Ms. Reena Rao, Adv.
Case Title: NAEEM VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1978 OF 2022
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 199