Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations: Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court recently laid down the principles to be followed in cases where there are multiple dying declarations. The Court delved into the circumstances where the extent of burn injuries was considered when evaluating the credibility of dying declarations. The Court also clarified that evidence given by interested witnesses should be corroborated by an independent witness.

In this case, the deceased was set on fire and died due to multiple burn injuries and the appellant was booked for murder under section 302, IPC. The Court pointed out that none of the dying declarations conclusively incriminated the accused. Moreover, the Court found inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case which led to the acquittal of the appellant.

It observed “Considering the aforementioned factors, placing the gauntlet of guilt upon the convict-appellant based on dying declarations when no other material particulars, apart from his name, could be elicited therefrom would be unjustified. Furthermore, when considering other circumstances that may or may not point to the guilt of the convict-appellant, as discussed above, we find gaps unexplained in the prosecution case, which cast sufficient doubt to leave the case short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment which had confirmed the life imprisonment sentence of the appellant in a murder case under section 302 IPC.

In the present case, the appellant (Abhishek Sharma) was accused of murdering his colleague Mandeep Kaur(deceased)  on the intervening night of September 20th and 21st, 2007.

In the Trial Court, all four dying declarations made by the deceased were found to be consistent, voluntarily given, and reflective of her sound mental condition at the time. As a result, the appellant was found guilty and convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court, upon appeal, agreed with the Trial Court's findings, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of its lack of merit.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Since the prosecution's case relied heavily on the deceased's alleged dying declarations, the Court began by appreciating the various principles of law laid down by this court in respect of cases involving multiple dying declarations.

In the case of Kamla v. State of Punjab (1993) 1 SCC 1, the Court emphasized that when inconsistencies arise between different dying declarations, the nature of these inconsistencies, whether material or not, must be examined.

In situations where two different dying declarations exist, the Court in State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 769 had expressed that serious doubts arise concerning their truthfulness. If reliable corroborative evidence is available, it should be considered to test the credibility of the dying declarations.

The Court further discussed the case of Amol Singh v. State of M.P.(2008) 5 SCC 468, which held that inconsistencies between multiple dying declarations must be assessed in the context of surrounding facts and circumstances. This scrutiny enables the Court to determine which declaration holds more value in specific scenarios.

In cases of multiple dying declarations, the Court referred to Lakhan v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 514 which was also cited recently in Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677. The Court had held that when several dying declarations are presented, and inconsistencies are apparent, the declaration recorded by a higher-ranking officer, such as a Magistrate, is generally considered more reliable, provided that no circumstances raise suspicion about its truthfulness.

The Court referred to Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 224 which highlighted that when multiple dying declarations exist, each must be assessed independently based on its own merit. Inconsistencies between declarations should not automatically lead to their rejection.

The Court relied on Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 8 SCC 779, where the Court held that if inconsistencies are reconcilable, the Court looks at other material on record. The Court also categorized cases into three groups: cases with reconcilable inconsistencies, cases with irreconcilable inconsistencies, and cases with diametrically opposed dying declarations.

The Court further referred to Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576, where it was emphasized that when handling cases with multiple dying declarations, the court should scrutinize the evidence to determine which declaration aligns with other material evidence, such as medical reports and the physical and mental state of the deceased.

Principles to be followed in cases of Multiple Dying Declaration

After a thorough discussion, the court laid down the principles to be considered in cases of multiple dying declarations as follows-

• Voluntary and Reliable Statements: All dying declarations must be voluntary and reliable, with the person making the statement in a fit state of mind.
• Consistency: Dying declarations should be consistent, and any inconsistencies should be "material" to impact their credibility.
• Corroboration: In cases with inconsistencies, other available evidence may be used to corroborate the contents of the dying declarations.
• Contextual Interpretation: Dying declarations must be interpreted in light of the surrounding facts and circumstances.
• Independent Evaluation: Each declaration must be independently evaluated, and the court should determine which statement is most reliable to proceed with the case.
• Magistrate's Statement: When inconsistencies exist, the statement recorded by a Magistrate or a higher-ranking officer can be relied upon if it demonstrates truthfulness and freedom from suspicion.
• Medical Fitness: The physical condition of the person making the declaration, especially in cases of burn injuries, is crucial. The extent of burn injuries and their impact on the person's mental faculties, along with other factors, must be considered

Dying Declarations where burn injuries were considered

The Court also referred to past judgments where the extent of burn injuries was considered when evaluating the credibility of dying declarations. Notably, the judgment in Chacko v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 112 highlighted the importance of a person's medical condition, while P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443 emphasized that the credibility of a dying declaration depends on various factors, including the nature and impact of the injuries.

In the case of Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 173, a dying declaration was not accepted due to the influence of drugs on the deceased's mental alertness.

The Court drew upon the principles laid down by a 3-judge bench in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22 for evaluating the circumstances under which the statement was made, the person's capacity to remember the facts, consistency in the statements, and whether the statement was made at the earliest opportunity without external influence.

With these principles in mind, the Court turned its attention to the specific case at hand. The Court noted that the statement, in this instance, was recorded in the third person, indicating that Assistant Sub-Inspector Anoop Singh (PW16) had reported the incident of the victim being burned. The Court noted that although Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) makes exceptions to the rule of hearsay for dying declarations, it cannot be applied in this case. This is because the statement was three degrees removed from the deceased, making it ineligible for the exception.

Furthermore, the Court analyzed the contents of the statement, which described the presence of burn injuries caused by Abhishek, without providing a detailed identification of the appellant or how the injuries were inflicted. The Court also highlighted the absence of a medical opinion in the record, which could have clarified the impact of administered treatment on the mental fitness of the deceased.

Evidence given by Interested Witnesses should be corroborated by independent witness

The Court also scrutinized the credibility of another dying declaration made by the deceased to her mother, an interested witness.

Citing precedents set by a 3 judge bench in Hari Obula Reddy and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1981)3 SCC 675, the Court emphasized that evidence provided by interested witnesses is not inherently unreliable. It was clarified that interested evidence should be carefully scrutinized and accepted with caution.

The Court then referred to Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444 where it reaffirmed that the mere fact that a witness is related to the deceased should not be the sole reason for rejecting their testimony. Instead, the evidence should be assessed for its trustworthiness and credibility. If found reliable and probable, it can be considered, but if it raises suspicion, it should be rejected.

The Court noted that, generally, evidence provided by an interested witness should be corroborated by independent evidence.

The Court observed “particularly when the person making the statement is the mother of the deceased, the court cannot rule out, to a positive degree, the role played by a sense of loss and possibly even anger, to rely on such statement. Had there been some sort of corroboration with other persons being present, the same could have been relied on.”

The prosecution's case relied heavily on the deceased's alleged dying declarations but the Court raised doubts about the credibility and reliability of these statements. The Court pointed out that none of the dying declarations conclusively incriminated the accused.

Additionally, the Court found inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case. It highlighted contradictions in statements from various witnesses regarding the timeline and the deceased's family members' presence at the hospital. The failure to examine the deceased's brother, who could have shed light on her relationship with the accused, was another notable lapse.

The Court stressed that the prosecution had not established the ownership of any vehicle by the accused, the existence of animosity between the appellant and the deceased, or any connection between the appellant and the inflammable substance used in the crime.

In light of the above, the court acquitted the appellant and set him free.

Case title: Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 907

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment