There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying
declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this
question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same. Certain factors below reproduced can be considered to determine the same, however, they will only affect the weight of the dying declaration and not its admissibility: -
(i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation
of death?
(ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest
opportunity? “Rule of First Opportunity”
(iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying
declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person?
(iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting,
tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested
party?
(v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly?
(vi) Whether, the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly
observe the incident?
(vii) Whether, the dying declaration has been consistent
throughout?
(viii) Whether, the dying declaration in itself is a manifestation /
fiction of the dying person’s imagination of what he thinks
transpired?
(ix) Whether, the dying declaration was itself voluntary?
(x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one
inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration?
(xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for
the deceased to make a dying declaration? {Para 62}
63. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against theaccused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.
64. It is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying
declaration alone in the cases where suspicion, like the case on hand is raised, as regards the correctness of the dying declaration. In such cases, the Court may have to look for some corroborative evidence by treating the dying declaration only as a piece of evidence. The evidence and material available on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. The reason why we say so is that in the case on hand, although the appellant-convict has been named in the two dying declarations as a person who set the room on fire yet the surrounding circumstances render such statement of the declarants very doubtful.
2023INSC758
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 825-826 of 2022
IRFAN @ NAKA Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Author: J. B. Pardiwala, J.:
Dated: AUGUST 23, 2023.
1. These appeals by special leave are at the instance of a convictaccused
and is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2018,
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Capital Case No.
4669 of 2017 connected with Reference No. 11 of 2017 by which, the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convict-accused and thereby
affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of death passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 6, Bijnore for the offence
punishable under Sections 302, 436 and 326-A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) respectively.
2
2. The convict was awarded death penalty with fine of Rs. 20,000/- by
the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. For the
offence punishable under Section 436 IPC, the convict was awarded life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and for the offence punishable
under Section 326-A IPC, the appellant came to be sentenced for life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fines,
further six months of rigorous imprisonment.
3. While the criminal reference was submitted by the trial court under
Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the
CrPC’) for confirmation of capital punishment awarded to the appellantconvict,
the appellant-convict preferred an appeal by way of Capital Case
No. 4669 of 2017, putting in issue his conviction and sentence. The High
Court dismissed the case filed by the appellant-convict thereby confirming
the death reference under Section 366 of the CrPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
4. FAMILY CHART
3
5. The appellant-convict was married twice. The first marriage was
with a lady by name Ishrat, who was the daughter of his uncle Mohammad
Yunus (PW-1). His second marriage was solemnised with a lady named
Afsana. One son by name Islamuddin (deceased) was born in wedlock with
Ishrat. The convict had two brothers, namely, Irshad (deceased) and
Naushad (deceased), who lived along with him and his sister Soni (PW-4).
Another brother by name Shanu alias Shahnawaz (PW-2) of the convict
lived in the neighbourhood.
6. It is the case of the prosecution that the three deceased persons more
particularly Islamuddin (convict’s son) was highly opposed to the second
marriage of his father, i.e., the appellant-convict. Islamuddin (deceased)
was even once beaten by the appellant-convict as he had offered lot of
opposition to the second marriage of his father. Islamuddin was also
threatened by the appellant-convict that he would be thrown out of the
house. Deceased Naushad (appellant-convict’s brother) was in Saudi
Arabia. He had just returned to Bijnore from Saudi Arabia on 04.08.2014.
7. Few days before the date of the incident, the appellant-convict had
beaten his son (deceased Islamuddin) and at that point of time, Naushad
and Irshad (deceased persons) had intervened to save Islamuddin. On
05.08.2014, at around 05.30 pm, PW-2 Shanu (convict’s brother) went to
see deceased Naushad and had dinner with PW-4 (convict’s sister),
Islamuddin and Irshad. The PW-2 also invited the appellant-convict for
dinner. The appellant-convict lived in the same house as PW-4 and
Naushad, but on a different floor.
8. On 05.08.2014, at around 10.00 pm, after the dinner was over, PW-
4 asked the PW-2 to stay overnight as it was too late. Naushad and
Islamuddin slept in one room. As Irshad wanted to sleep on the roof, the
4
appellant-convict advised him to sleep inside the room, as the weather was
bad. Thus, all the three deceased persons ended up sleeping in one room.
9. PW-2 claims that the door of the room in which, the three deceased
were sleeping, was open. However, according to the PW-4, it was locked
from inside. The PW-2 lived at a distance of 200 metres from the place of
the incident. It is pertinent to note that the High Court disbelieved the
presence of the PW-2 at the place of occurrence, i.e., the house.
10. On 06.08.2014, at around 12.30 am, the PW-2 is said to have woken
up to see flames and smoke coming from the room, where the deceased
persons were sleeping. The PW-2 and his sister Soni (PW-4) claim to have
seen the appellant-convict setting the room on fire and thereafter, fastening
the door latch from outside and running away.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that the PW-2 and PW-4 opened the
door and at that point of time, saw the appellant-convict running from the
roof towards the stairs. According to the case of the prosecution, Amzad
and one another person by name Shafiq (both not examined) also saw the
appellant-convict running away.
12. The PW-1 (Original first informant- uncle of the appellant-convict)
was sleeping in his room in his own house at the time of the incident. The
uncle’s house is at the distance of about 200 metres from the place of the
occurrence.
13. The relatives first took Islamuddin, Irshad and Naushad to one Pooja
Hospital situated at Najibabad in a vehicle. The Hospital declined to admit
them. All the three injured were thereafter, taken to the hospitals at Bijnore
5
and Meerut and finally were admitted to the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
Hospital, Delhi (RML Hospital).
14. On 06.08.2014, early in the morning at around 6.10 am all the three
injured were brought to the casualty ward of the RML Hospital by Shafiq
Ahmad (not examined). At 9.00 am, PW-1 (first informant) lodged a First
Information Report with the Najibabad Police Station. In the FIR, the first
informant alleged that it was the appellant-convict, who set his own son
and two real brothers on fire, while they were sleeping on account of
personal animosity.
15. The dying declaration of deceased Irshad was recorded on
07.08.2014 by the A.S.I. at the RML Hospital. Irshad passed away on
09.08.2014. In the same way, the dying declaration of Islamuddin was
recorded on 07.08.2014. Islamuddin passed away on 18.08.2014. It appears
that the dying declaration of Naushad could not be recorded. Naushad also
passed away on 18.08.2014. The two dying declarations were videographed
in the mobile of the A.S.I.
16. On the strength of the FIR, the investigation was undertaken and on
conclusion, the chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bijnore, for the offences enumerated above, who in turn
committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
17. On 06.01.2015, the Additional District and Sessions Judge framed
charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 436,
302 and 326-A respectively of the IPC. The accused did not admit the
charge and claimed to be tried.
6
18. In the course of the trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral
evidence in support of its case:
S. No. Oral Evidences
Witnesses
1. Mohd. Yunus, Uncle and Father-in-Law
PW-1
2. Shanu @ Shahnawaz, Younger Brother
PW-2
3. Mohd. Imran, Downstairs Neighbour, (examined
to prove recovery memo)
PW-3
4. Soni, Sister
PW-4
5. ASI, Narender Singh Rawat, Police Post, RML
Hospital
PW-5
6. Dr Saurav, RML Hospital
PW-6
7. Dr Rahul Band, Lady Hardinge Medical College,
New Delhi
PW-7
8. Dr Kuldeep Panchal, Lady Hardinge Medical
College, New Delhi
PW-8
9. Vishnu Gopal Upadhyaya, SI
PW-9
10. R.P. Yadav, Inspector (Retd)
PW-10
11. Dr Arvind Kumar, Associate Prof., Forensic
Medicine, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New
Delhi
PW-11
12. Dr Charanjeet Kaur, RML Hospital
PW-12
13. Riyaz-ud-din Khan, Constable Clerk 1184
PW-13
7
19. The prosecution also adduced the following documentary evidence:
S.No. Particulars Number and Name of
with witness
Exhibit
Nos.
1. Original complaint dated
06.08.14
PW-1, Mohammad
Yunus
Exhibit
Ka-1
2. Forensic Science
Laboratory Report, Agra
dated 08.12.14
Exhibited by Court vide
order dated 19.03.15
Exhibit
Ka-2
3. Statement of the
deceased Irshad dated
07.08.14
PW-5, A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-2
4. Request form of autopsy
of the deceased Irshad
dated 10.08.14
PW-5, A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-3
5. Request form of autopsy
of the deceased Naushad
dated 18.08.14
PW-5, A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-4
6. Copy of the statement of
deceased Islamuddin
dated 07.08.14
PW-5, A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-5
7. Statement of the
deceased Islamuddin
dated 07.08.14
PW-5, A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-5A
8. Request form of autopsy
of the deceased
Islamuddin dated
19.08.14
PW-5, A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-6
9. Receipt of dead body of
Islamuddin 19.08.14
PW-5 A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-7
10. Statement for
identification of dead
PW-5 A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-8
8
body of deceased Irshad
dated 10.08.14
11. Receipt of dead body of
Irshad dated 10.08.14
PW-5 A.S.I. Narender
Singh Rawat
Exhibit
Ka-9
12. Medico Legal Case
Sheet of the deceased
Irshad dated 06.08.14
PW-6 Dr. Sourav Exhibit
Ka-10
13. Medico Legal Case
Sheet of the deceased
Naushad dated 06.08.14
PW-6 Dr. Sourav Exhibit
Ka-11
14. Medico Legal Case
Sheet of the deceased
Islamuddin dated
06.08.14
PW-6 Dr. Sourav Exhibit
Ka-12
15. Medico Legal Post
Mortem report of the
deceased Islamuddin
dated 19.08.14
PW-7 Dr. Rahul Band Exhibit
Ka-10
A
16. Medico Legal Post
Mortem report of the
deceased Irshad dated
10.08.14
PW-7 Dr. Rahul Band Exhibit
Ka-11
A
17. Medico Legal Post
Mortem Report of the
deceased Naushad dated
18.08.14
PW-8 Dr. Kuldeep
Panchal
Exhibit
Ka-12
A
18. Site Plan dated 06.08.14 PW-9 S.I. Vishnu Gopal
Upadhyay
Exhibit
Ka-13
19. Recovery Memo dated
06.08.14
PW-9 S.I. Vishnu Gopal
Upadhyay
Exhibit
Ka-14
20. Charge Sheet dated
28.09.14
PW-10 Inspector R.P.
Yadav (Retd.)
Exhibit
Ka14-A
9
21. Death report of the
deceased Islamuddin
dated 18.08.14
PW-12 Dr. Charanjeet
Kaur
Exhibit
Ka-15
22. Place of occurrence
investigation report
dated 06.08.14
PW-9 S.I. Vishnu Gopal
Upadhyay
Exhibit
Ka-16
23. Chick FIR dated
06.08.14
PW-13 Constable Clerk
Riyazudeen Khan
Exhibit
Ka-17
24. Carbon copy G.D. PW-13 Riyazudeen
Khan
Exhibit
Ka-18
20. Upon completion of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in
which, the accused stated that he was innocent and had been falsely
implicated in the alleged crime.
21. The trial court upon appreciation of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence on record, arrived at the finding that the prosecution
had been successful in establishing its case against the appellant-convict
beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the trial court held the appellantconvict
guilty of the offence enumerated above and sentenced him to death.
22. The appellant-convict being dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the trial court, challenged the same before the High Court. The
High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant-convict and confirmed
the death sentence imposed by the trial court.
23. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant-convict is here
before this Court with the present appeals.
10
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
24. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant-convict vehemently submitted that:
a. The courts below committed a serious error in recording a finding
that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the convict
beyond reasonable doubt.
b. The entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence and none of the
circumstances, relied upon by the courts below to hold the appellantconvict
guilty of the charges, could be termed as incriminating
circumstances.
c. The two dying declarations; one of Irshad and the other of
Islamuddin could not have been relied upon, as they do not inspire any
confidence and are in conflict with the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses.
d. The manner in which, the dying declarations came to be recorded,
speaks for itself. He would submit that the dying declaration should
ordinarily be recorded in a question-answer form. The Investigating Officer
did not even deem fit to call the Executive Magistrate to record the dying
declarations. It was also argued that there is nothing to indicate as regards
the condition of the injured persons, while they are said to have made the
dying declarations before the Investigating Officer. To put it in other words,
whether Irshad and Islamuddin were in a fit condition to speak so as to give
dying declarations? It was pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that
all the three Medico Legal Case (MLC) reports, which were prepared noted
“No BP readable”. Irshad and Naushad had suffered 95 % burns, whereas,
Islamuddin had suffered 80-90 % burns.
11
e. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned Senior Counsel
prayed that there being merit in his appeals, the same may be allowed and
the judgment of the High Court and that of the trial court be set aside and
the appellant-convict be acquitted of all the charges.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
25. On the other hand, these appeals were vehemently opposed by Mr.
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prashad, the learned AAG, appearing for the State.
He submitted thus:
a. No error much less an error of law could be said to have been
committed by the courts below in holding the appellant-convict guilty of
the offences with which he was charged.
b. There was a strong motive for the appellant-convict to commit the
crime. The second marriage of the appellant-convict was opposed by his
son Islamuddin. As the appellant- convict wanted to disown his son, the
same was opposed by his two brothers Naushad and Irshad. That is the
reason why the appellant-convict was at inimical terms with his own son
Islamuddin and his two real brothers Naushad and Irshad.
c. There is no good reason to discard the oral evidence of the PW-2
Shanu alias Shahnawaz and PW-4 Soni.
d. The courts below rightly believed the two dying declarations to be
true and trustworthy.
e. To conclude, the learned counsel pointed out that the appellantconvict
is a history-sheeter and has tendency to repeatedly indulge in
serious crimes.
f. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prayed
that there being no merit in the present appeals, the same may be dismissed
and the death sentence awarded may be upheld.
12
ORAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD
26. Mohammad Yunus (PW-1) is the first informant. He has deposed
that the appellant-convict is his real nephew and also happens to be his sonin-
law. In the intervening night of 05/06.08.2014 at about 12.30 am in the
night, the appellant set his real brothers, Naushad and Irshad on fire
including his son Islamuddin by pouring highly inflammable substance on
them, while they were sleeping in the room. He has deposed that after
setting the deceased persons on fire, the appellant shut the door from
outside. On hearing the cries and shouts of Islamuddin, Naushad and
Irshad, his brother Amzad and others including Shafiq and Shanu came
running from the neighbourhood and broke upon the door. The injured were
thereafter, taken to the Hospital at Najibabad.
27. Shanu alias Shahnawaz was examined as PW-2. Shanu is the
younger brother of the appellant-convict. He has deposed that on
05.08.2014, late in the evening, he had gone to his old house to meet his
brother Naushad. Naushad had returned from Saudi Arabia after a long
time. His younger sister Soni (PW-4) had cooked food for them and they
all had dinner together. His elder brother (convict) had also come down
from his place of living to the ground floor. The convict had hatred towards
Naushad and Irshad. The convict had solemnised his second marriage at
Jaspura town, after his release from jail. After arrival of his second wife,
the convict wanted to separate his son Islamuddin. The convict had also
assaulted Islamuddin two days before the incident, which was settled by
Irshad and Naushad. On 05.08.2014, the second wife of the convict had
gone to her parents’ house at Jaspura. Being the elder brother, he asked the
convict to take meal along with them. It was around 11.00 in the night. His
sister Soni asked the PW-2 to stay back as it was late in the night. Naushad
13
slept in one room. Islamuddin slept in the room on the floor on a mattress.
When Irshad went to sleep outside the room on the roof, the convict asked
Irshad to sleep inside the room as the weather outside was bad. Irshad also
slept by the side of Islamuddin in the room. Islamuddin, Irshad and
Naushad slept together in one room. The door of that room was open. PW-
2 and his sister Soni slept in the adjoining room. At about 12.30 in the night,
they saw smoke and flames coming out from the room, in which all the
three deceased were sleeping. Then, he saw that the convict had poured
some highly inflammable substance in the room in which Islamuddin,
Irshad and Naushad were sleeping and set it on fire. The convict ran away
after closing the door of the room from outside. All the three were severely
burnt. All the three injured died at the RML Hospital. When the convict
had solemnised second marriage, the same was opposed by Islamuddin.
The convict at that point of time had beaten Islamuddin and had threatened
that he would expel him from the house.
28. Soni (PW-4) was examined as an eye-witness to the incident. She
deposed that the convict was her real brother. She was present at her house
on 05.08.2014. She herself had prepared the meal in the evening on that
day. Her brothers, the convict, Naushad and Irshad and her nephew
Islamuddin were present on the second floor of her house. All of them had
meal together. After taking meal, Naushad and Islamuddin went to sleep in
the adjoining room and Irshad was sleeping on a cot outside the room. The
convict asked Irshad to sleep inside the room, as the weather outside was
bad. Irshad also slept by the side of Islamuddin in the room. They shut the
door of the room from inside. The convict shut the door of the room from
outside. Then cries “bachao-bachao” came from the room and flames of
fire were seen inside the room. When she opened the room, she saw that
the convict was running towards the stairs. Amzad and Shafiq saw the
14
convict while he was running away. They all saw the burning room. After
opening the door, they evacuated Naushad, Irshad and Islamuddin. All
three were severely burnt. The skin of their legs got stuck on the floor. They
took all the three injured to Pooja hospital in a vehicle. On refusal to admit,
they were taken to Bijnore, thereafter to Meerut and from Meerut to the
RML Hospital. During travel, her brothers and nephew were talking. Her
brothers and nephew said that the convict set fire in the room after pouring
petrol on account of which, all of them got burnt. All the three died at the
RML Hospital, Delhi. The convict had solemnised second marriage after
coming out from jail. Her brothers Irshad, Naushad and nephew Islamuddin
had objected to it. The convict wanted to oust Islamuddin from their house.
Her brothers Irshad, Naushad took the side of Islamuddin. For this reason,
the convict burnt all of them by pouring petrol, setting them on fire and
shutting the room from outside in order to kill them.
29. In her cross-examination, she stated that to the best of her
knowledge, Islamuddin and Naushad had bolted the room from inside. The
room in which, she was sleeping, was not bolted from outside. No other
room was bolted from outside, except the room in which Islamuddin and
Naushad were sleeping.
30. A.S.I. Narender Singh Rawat was examined as PW-5. He was
examined to prove the dying declarations of Irshad (Ex. Ka.2) and
Islamuddin (Ex. Ka.5A) recorded by him. He has deposed that on
19.08.2014, he was posted at the Police Out-post of RML Hospital, New
Delhi. Irshad, Naushad and Islamuddin were admitted on 06.08.2014, in
the RML Hospital. He recorded statement of Irshad on 07.08.2014, who
told that they lived with the entire family. He ran a mobile phone shop. On
05/06.08.2014, while he and his elder brother Naushad and nephew
15
Islamuddin were sleeping in his house, at about 12.30 in the night, his
brother Irfan/convict closed the door from outside and set the room on fire
from inside with some inflammable substance. Due to which, they suffered
severe burn injuries. The neighbours evacuated them from the room after a
long time, and admitted them in the Pooja Hospital, Najibabad. They were
referred to the RML Hospital from there for treatment. This statement was
given by the deceased Irshad. Paper No. 13, filed in the case, was in his
handwriting and signature. He had obtained thumb marks of Irshad, which
was identified by him. It was marked as Ex. Ka-2. Irshad died on
09.08.2014 at 07.30 pm. The dead body was sent to the Lady Hardinge
Hospital for postmortem on 10.08.2014. After the postmortem, the body
was handed over to his relatives Sadaqat and Shahnawaz after proper
identification. The deceased Naushad died on 18.08.2014 at 08.40 am. His
postmortem was conducted on the same day and dead body was handed
over to his relative. He had also recorded the statement of the deceased
Islamuddin. He had stated that the convict had closed the door from outside
and set the room on fire from inside with some inflammable substance, due
to which, he, his uncles Irshad and Naushad got burnt. The neighbours
saved them on hearing their cries. PW-5 recorded the statement of the
deceased on 07.08.2014, which was filed in case file and under his
handwriting and signature. The same was marked as Ex. Ka-5. Islamuddin
died on 18.08.2014 at 09.15 pm. His postmortem was conducted on
19.08.2014. Dead bodies of all the three were handed over to Shahnawaz
and Sadaqat, after postmortem.
31. In his cross-examination he stated that he had not investigated this
case. Neither any officer of Delhi Police nor U.P. Police deputed him to
investigate this case. He had recorded the statements of the deceased Irshad
and Islamuddin on 07.08.2014. He had recorded the statements of both in
16
the emergency ward of the hospital. No one else was present at the time of
recording the statement except him and the deceased persons. Both of them
were in a fit condition when he recorded their statements. Exhibit Ka-2 and
Exhibit Ka-5, the statement of Islamuddin does not bear the thumb
impression or signature of anybody else except his own and the deceased.
Exhibit Ka-2 and Ex. Ka-5 do not bear any certificate from the doctor with
regard to fitness of both the deceased. Ex. Ka-2 and Ex. Ka-5 do not bear
his endorsement with regard to fitness of the deceased at the time of
recording the statements. There was a time gap of 15 – 20 minutes in
recording of the two dying declarations. Both were written on the same day
and at the same place. PW-5 had written only two statements. Different
pens were used in recording the statements, but to obtain thumb
impressions of the deceased, one ink pad was used.
32. A.S.I. Narender Singh Rawat PW-5 was recalled for the purpose of
re-examination on 28.04.2017 in compliance of the order dated 15.04.2017.
That on 07.08.2014, he was posted at the RML Hospital. On that day he
had recorded the statement of Islamuddin aged about 16 years, son of the
convict, resident of mohalla Muglooshah, Najibabad, District Bijnore.
Islamuddin was in a fit condition to give a statement. He had recorded his
statement word by word as stated by him. His thumb impression was taken
on the statement. The thumb impression was identified by him. He had also
put his signature on the statement. His statement has been recorded earlier
in the court.
33. The appellant-convict examined himself as a defence witness. He
deposed that his parents had five children. He was the eldest, his brothers
were, namely, Shanu, Irshad and Naushad and one sister Soni. Islamuddin
was born from his first wife Ishrat. His first wife had left his house as his
17
brothers used to quarrel with her in respect of property. At the time, when
his first wife left the house, Islamuddin was aged about 10 years. His
brothers and sister were taking undue advantage of the tender age of
Islamuddin and his mother deserting them. Taking advantage, they sent him
to jail, in a false case. He came out from jail three years before the incident.
During these three years, he did not quarrel with any neighbours or any
person from the mohalla. He married another woman, one and half years
prior to this incident. His sister also used to quarrel with his second wife
frequently for the property due to which she left her house. He has deposed
that his brothers, deceased Irshad and Naushad and his son Islamuddin used
to consider him to be a weak person and with a view to grab the property,
they all colluded to get my brothers and son killed. It was not known
through whom, they got them killed. They falsely implicated him in the
case. He ran away from the place of occurrence due to fear as he was
released from jail in the recent past.
DYING DECLARATIONS:
34. We shall now look into the two dying declarations.
35. The deceased Irshad in his dying declaration recorded on 07.08.2014
stated thus:
“Statement of Irshad, s/o-Mo. Ayub, r/o Mohalla-
Muglushah, P.S. Nazivabad, Distrinct-Bijnor, U.P., age-
20 years.
Stated that I am residing at the place mentioned above. I
am running a mobile phone shop at Nazivabad. I was
sleeping with my brother Naushad and nephew Islamuddin
in the house. We were sleeping in the same room. Then at
18
around 12.30 at night my brother Irfan locked the door
from outside and set fire in the room with some
inflammable substance. As the room was on fire, we raised
alarm. We all seriously got burnt and after a long time
neighbours took us out of the room and they got us
admitted at the Pooja Hospital, Nazivabad. After first aid
they got admitted us at Dr. R.M.L. Hospital New Delhi and
my treatment is continuing here. Heard the statement, it is
correct.”
36. The deceased Islamuddin, in his dying declaration recorded on
07.08.2014, stated thus:
“Statement of Islamuddin, s/o-Irfan, r/o- Mohalla-
Muglushah, P.S. Nazivabad, Distrinct-Bijnor, U.P., age-
16 years.
Stated that I am residing at the place mentioned above. I am
running a mobile phone shop at Nazivabad. I was sleeping
with my uncle Irshad and Naushad in the house. We were
sleeping in the same room. Then at around 12.30 at night
my father Irfan locked the door from outside and set fire in
the room with some inflammable substance. After the room
was on fire, we raised alarm. We all seriously got burnt and
after a long time neighbours took us out of the room and
they got us admitted at the Pooja Hospital, Nazivabad. After
first aid they got admitted us at Dr. R.M.L. Hospital New
Delhi and my treatment is continuing here. Heard the
statement, it is correct. ”
ANALYSIS
37. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for
our consideration is whether the prosecution could be said to have proved
its case against the appellant-convict beyond reasonable doubt.
19
38. The jurisdiction of this Court in criminal appeals filed against
concurrent findings is circumscribed by principles summarised by this
Court in Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab reported in
(1976) 4 SCC 158, para 8, as follows:
“8. Thus the principles governing interference by this Court in
a criminal appeal by special leave may be summarised as
follows:
(1) that this Court would not interfere with the concurrent
finding of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence even
if it were to take a different view on the evidence;
(2) that the Court will not normally enter into a
reappraisement or review of the evidence, unless the
assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of law
or procedure or is based on error of record, misreading of
evidence or is inconsistent with the evidence, for instance,
where the ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with the
medical evidence and so on;
(3) that the Court would not enter into credibility of the
evidence with a view to substitute its own opinion for that of
the High Court;
(4) that the Court would interfere where the High Court has
arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of a judicial process,
principles of natural justice or a fair hearing or has acted
in violation of a mandatory provision of law or procedure
resulting in serious prejudice or injustice to the accused;
(5) this Court might also interfere where on the proved facts
wrong inferences of law have been drawn or where the
conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and
based on no evidence.”
(Emphasis supplied)
20
DYING DECLARATIONS VIS-A-VIS ORAL EVIDENCE OF THE
EYE-WITNESSES ON RECORD
39. The picture that emerges on cumulative assessment of the materials
on record is that the appellant-convict had strained relationship with his son
Islamuddin (deceased) born in the wedlock of his first marriage with Ishrat.
His relations with his two brothers (deceased persons) were also strained.
The defence put forward by the appellant-convict is that with a view to grab
the property, PW-2 Shanu alias Shahnawaz, PW-4 Soni and others
conspired to eliminate the deceased persons and thereafter, to throw the
entire blame on the appellant-convict of having committed the crime. The
incident occurred in the night hours. The three deceased were sleeping in
one room. The PW-2 and PW-4 are said to have been sleeping in an
adjoining room in the house. The appellant-convict is said to have locked
the door of the room from outside in which, the deceased persons were
sleeping. He poured inflammable substance in the room and set the room
on fire. The three deceased persons suffered severe burn injuries and
ultimately succumbed to death. Islamuddin and Irshad are said to have
given their dying declarations before the A.S.I. as referred to above. Why
the dying declaration of Naushad could not be recorded is not clear. A close
perusal of the two dying declarations indicates that Irshad and Islamuddin
raised alarm on getting severely burnt and they were taken out of the room
by the neighbour. Who is this neighbour, they are referring to in their dying
declarations is also not clear? At the same time, it is pertinent to note that
the Irshad and Islamuddin in their respective dying declarations do not say
a word about the presence of the PW-2 Shanu alias Shahnawaz and PW-4
Soni. Both these witnesses do not figure in the two dying declarations. It is
also pertinent to note that in both the dying declarations it has been very
21
clearly stated that after a long time a neighbour came to their rescue and
took them out of the burning room.
40. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, if we look into the oral evidence of
the PW-2 Shanu alias Shahnawaz then according to him, he along with his
sister Soni (PW-4) noticed fire in the room in which the deceased persons
were sleeping. According to the PW-4, she also witnessed the appellantconvict
pouring kerosene and setting the room on fire in which, the
deceased persons were sleeping. PW-2 also claims to have witnessed, the
appellant-convict fastening the door latch from outside and thereafter,
running away from that place. In the same manner, if we closely look into
the oral evidence of the PW-4 Soni, then according to her on seeing the
flames of fire in the room, in which the deceased persons were sleeping,
she immediately opened the door and saw that the appellant-convict was
running from the roof towards the stairs. The PW-4 claims that Amzad and
Shafiq also saw the appellant-convict running away. Amzad and Shafiq
have not been examined as the prosecution witnesses. It is not clear whether
police even recorded the statements of Amzad and Shafiq under Section
161 of the CrPC?
41. If PW-2 and PW-4 were present at the time when the room was on
fire and it is they who opened the door and took out the three deceased
persons, then why the PW-2 and PW-4 do not figure in the dying
declarations of Irshad and Islamuddin? Why Islamuddin and Irshad said in
their dying declarations that after a long time, the neighbour came to their
rescue and took them out of the room? If a neighbour came to their rescue,
then where were PW-2 and PW-4 at the time of the incident? PW-2 and
PW-4 have deposed that they both were sleeping in the room adjacent to
the room in which the deceased persons were sleeping. This is one very
22
crucial aspect of the matter which, the prosecution has not been able to
explain or clarify.
42. In such circumstances referred to above, we are left with either to
believe the dying declarations or the oral evidence of the two so called eyewitnesses
to the incident. It is also important to note that the PW-4 Soni, in
her cross-examination has stated that to the best of her knowledge,
Islamuddin and Naushad had fastened the latch from inside. If the door of
the room, in which the deceased persons were sleeping was closed from
inside, then how did the appellant-convict manage to open the door and
enter the room so as to set the room on fire as alleged?
43. The juristic theory regarding the acceptability of a dying declaration
is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point
of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to
falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful
consideration to speak only the truth. Notwithstanding the same, great
caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this
species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances
which may affect their truth. The situation in which a man is on the
deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity
of his statement. It is for this reason, the requirements of oath and crossexamination
are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of crossexamination,
the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such
a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and
correctness. The court, however, should always be on guard to see that the
statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting
or a product of imagination. [See: Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002)
6 SCC 710]
23
44. The mode and manner, in which the dying declarations came to be
recorded, is also something which creates a doubt, as regards its
truthfulness and trustworthiness. Although, the Investigating Officer says
that the recording of the dying declarations was video-graphed and the CD
has been exhibited in evidence yet it is very important to determine the
evidentiary value of the same.
45. We should also look into the genesis of the occurrence from a
different angle. It is not in dispute that the three deceased died on account
of severe burn injuries. It is also not in dispute that the room in which they
were sleeping caught fire on account of which they suffered severe burn
injuries. It is also not in dispute that inflammable substance like kerosene
was found from the room which ignited the fire. However, the moot
question is who set the room on fire? Could it be said that the prosecution
has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was only and only
the appellant-convict who set the room on fire by pouring the inflammable
substance?
46. It appears to us that whoever did the act, the inflammable substance
was not directly poured or sprinkled on the three deceased persons. Had it
been so, they would have immediately woken up and by the time, the room
is sat on fire, they would make good their escape or catch hold of the culprit.
It appears that the inflammable substance might have been poured on the
floor of the room and thereafter, the fire must have been ignited. Once, the
room is on fire, the person responsible for setting the room on fire would
immediately leave that place. We find it very difficult to believe that the
appellant-convict was still inside the room or even outside the room to be
witnessed by the deceased persons as well as by the PW-2 and PW-4,
locking the room from outside after setting the room on fire. The conduct
24
of the accused may be unnatural because he was residing in the very same
house, however, the conduct which may be a relevant fact under Section 8
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act 1872’), by itself may
not be sufficient to hold a person guilty of the offence of murder.
47. On overall assessment of the materials on record, we have reached to
the conclusion that neither the two dying declarations inspire any
confidence nor the oral evidence of the PW-2 and PW-4 respectively inspire
any confidence. Had the dying declarations stood corroborated by the oral
evidence of the PW-2 and PW-4, then probably, it would have been
altogether a different scenario. However, as noted above, the two dying
declarations are not consistent or rather contradictory to the oral evidence
on record.
48. The justification for the sanctity/presumption attached to a dying
declaration, is two fold; (i) ethically and religiously it is presumed that a
person while at the brink of death will not lie, whereas (ii) from a public
policy perspective it is to tackle a situation where the only witness to the
crime is not available.
49. One of the earliest judicial pronouncements where the rule as above
can be traced is the King’s Bench decision of the King v. William
Woodcock reported in (1789) 1 Leach 500 : 168 ER 352, where a dying
woman blamed her husband for her mortal injuries, wherein Judge Eyre
held this declaration to be admissible by observing: -
"…the general principle on which this species of evidence is
admitted is, that they are declarations made in extremity, when
the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this
world is gone: when every motive to falsehood is silent, and
25
the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to
speak the truth; a situation so solemn, and so awful, is
considered by the law as creating obligation equal to that
which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a Court of
Justice. (b) But a difficulty also arises with respect to these
declarations; for it has not appeared and it seems impossible
to find out, whether the deceased herself apprehended that she
was in such a state of morality as would inevitably oblige her
soon to answer before her Maker for the truth or falsehood of
her assertions. …. Declarations so made are certainly entitled
to credit; they ought therefore to be received in evidence: but
the degree of credit to which they are entitled must always be
a matter for the sober consideration of the Jury, under all the
circumstances of the case."
(Emphasis supplied)
50. Interestingly, the last observation of Judge Eyre showcases, even at
the inception of this principle, that the Courts were wary of the inherent
weakness of dying declarations and cautioned for great care to be adopted.
51. It is significant to note the observations made by Taylor that "Though
these declarations, when deliberately made under a solemn sense of
impending death, and concerning circumstances wherein the deceased is
not likely to be mistaken, are entitled to great weight, if precisely identified,
it should always be recollected that the accused has not the power of cross
examination, a power quite as essential to the eliciting of the truth as the
obligation of an oath can be, and that, where a witness has not a deep
sense of accountability to his Maker, feelings of anger or revenge, or, in
the case of mutual conflict, the natural desire of screening his own
misconduct, may effect the accuracy of his statements and give a false
colouring to the whole transaction. …". [See: Taylor on “Treatise on the
Law of Evidence”, 1931, 12th Edition Pg. 462]
26
52. It is observed in Corpus Juris Secundum Vol XL, Page 1283 that:
"In weighing dying declarations, the jury may consider the
circumstances under which they were made, as, whether they
were due to outside influence or were made in a spirit of
revenge, or when declarant was unable or unwilling to state
the facts, the inconsistent or contradictory character of the
declarations, and the fact that deceased has not appeared
and accused has been deprived of the opportunity to crossexamine
him, and may give to them the credit and weight to
which they believe, under all the circumstances, they are
fairly and reasonably entitled."
53. In India in the relevant provision of Section 32 of the Act 1872, the
first exception to the rule against admissibility of hearsay evidence, is as
under:
“32(1). When it relates to cause of death.— When the
statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or
as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that
person’s death comes into question. Such statements are
relevant whether the person who made them was or was not,
at the time when they were made, under expectation of death,
and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which
the cause of his death comes into question.”
54. Jon R. Waltz, American Jurist observed that, "It has been thought,
rightly or wrongly, that Dying Declarations have intrinsic assurances of
trustworthiness, making cross examination unnecessary. The notion is that
a person who is in the process of dying, and knows it, will be truthful
immediately before departing to meet his Maker. (Of course, the validity of
this hearsay exceptions is open to some debate. What about the person who
is not deeply religious? What of the person who, as his last act, seeks
revenge by falsely naming a life-long enemy as his killer? How reliable is
27
the perception and memory of a person who is dying?)” [See: Waltz, J.R.
(1975) Criminal Evidence, Chicago: Nelson-Hall. pp.75-76]
55. The Privy Council in Neville Nembhard v. The Queen reported in
(1982) 1 AII ER 183, on Section 32(1) of the Act 1872 opined that the
evidence of dying declaration under the Indian law lacks the special quality
as in Common Law and hence, the weight to be attached to a dying
declaration admitted under Section 32 of the Act 1872 would necessarily
be less than that attached to a dying declaration admitted under the common
law rules.
56. The below cited observations from the decision of Nembhard
(supra) are of significant importance:
" final observation should be made concerning the cases al
ready mentioned that have been decided in the Court of
Appeal for Eastern Africa. It appears that rule of practice
has been developed that when a dying declaration has been
the only evidence implicating an accused person a
conviction usually cannot be allowed to stand where there
had been a failure to give a warning on the necessity for
corroboration: see for example Pius Jasunga s/o Akumu v.
The Queen (1954) 21 E.A.C.A. 331 and Terikabi v.
Uganda [1975] E.A. 60. But it is important to notice that in
the countries concerned, the admissibility of a dying
declaration does not depend upon the common law test:
upon the deceased having at the time a settled hopeless
expectation of impending death. Instead there is the very
different statutory provision contained in section 32 (1) of
the Indian Evidence Act 1872. That section provides that
statements of relevant facts made by a person who is dead
are themselves relevant facts:
“When the statement is made by a person as to the
cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of
the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in
28
which the cause of that person's death comes into
question. Such statements are relevant whether the
person who made them was or was not, at the time
when they were made, under expectation of death, and
whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which
the cause of his death comes into question.” (emphasis
added).
In Pius Jasunga s/o Akumu v. The Queen it was pointed out
(for the reason associated with the italicised words in the
subsection) that the weight to be attached to a dying
declaration admitted by reference to section 32 of the Indian
Evidence Act 1872 would necessarily be less than that
attached to a dying declaration admitted under the common
law rules. The first kind of statement would lack that special
quality that is thought to surround a declaration made by a
dying man who was conscious of his condition and who had
given up all hope of survival. Accordingly it may not seem
surprising that the courts dealing with such statements have
felt the need to exercise even more caution in the use to be
made of them than is the case where the common law test is
applied."”
57. This Court in Muthu Kutty & Anr. v. State by Inspector of Police,
T.N. reported in (2005) 9 SCC 113, while discussing the decision in
Woodcock (supra) referred to above had cautioned the courts to ensure that
a dying declaration is reliable before relying on it, with the following
observations: -
“13. … The general principle on which this species of evidence
is admitted is that they are declarations made in extremity,
when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of
this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced,
and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations
to speak the truth; a situation so solemn and so lawful is
considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that
which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a court of
justice. These aspects have been eloquently stated by Eyre,
L.C.B. in R. v. Woodcock ((1789) 1 Leah 500 : 168 ER 352).
Shakespeare makes the wounded Melun, finding himself
29
disbelieved while announcing the intended treachery of the
Dauphin Lewis explain:
“Have I met hideous death within my view,
Retaining but a quantity of life,
Which bleeds away even as a form of wax,
Resolveth from his figure 'gainst the fire?
What is the world should make me now deceive,
Since I must lose the use of all deceit?
Why should I then be false since it is true
That I must die here and live hence by truth?”
(See King John, Act V, Scene IV)
The principle on which dying declaration is admitted in
evidence is indicated in the legal maxim “nemo moriturus
praesumitur mentire — a man will not meet his Maker with a
lie in his mouth”.
14. … The situation in which a person is on the deathbed is so
solemn and serene when he is dying that the grave position in
which he is placed, is the reason in law to accept veracity of
his statement. It is for this reason that the requirements of oath
and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides, should the
dying declaration be excluded it will result in miscarriage of
justice because the victim being generally the only eyewitness
in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave
the court without a scrap of evidence.
15. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is
worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of crossexamination.
Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth
as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the court
also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a
nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its
correctness. The court has to be on guard that the statement
of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, or
prompting or a product of imagination. The court must be
further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind
after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant.
Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and
voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any
further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute
rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole
30
basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule
requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. …”
(Emphasis supplied)
58. This Court in Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh reported in (2007) 15 SCC 465 and Bhajju alias Karan
Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2012) 4 SCC 327 had
explained the meaning and principles of dying declarations upon which its
admissibility is founded, with the following observations: -
“20. There is a historical and a literary basis for recognition
of dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule. Some
authorities suggest the rule is of Shakespearian origin. In The
Life and Death of King John, Shakespeare had made Lord
Melun utter “Have I met hideous death within my view,
retaining but a quantity of life, which bleeds away, … lose the
use of all deceit” and asked, “Why should I then be false, since
it is true that I must die here and live hence by truth?” William
Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John, Act 5, Scene 4,
lines 22-29.
Xxx xxx xxx
22. It is equally well settled and needs no restatement at our
hands that dying declaration can form the sole basis for
conviction. But at the same time due care and caution must be
exercised in considering weight to be given to dying
declaration inasmuch as there could be any number of
circumstances which may affect the truth. This Court in more
than one decision has cautioned that the courts have always to
be on guard to see that the dying declaration was not the result
of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. It
is the duty of the courts to find that the deceased was in a fit
state of mind to make the dying declaration. In order to satisfy
itself that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make
the dying declaration, the courts have to look for the medical
opinion.
23. It is not difficult to appreciate why dying declarations are
admitted in evidence at a trial for murder, as a striking
31
exception to the general rule against hearsay. For example,
any sanction of the oath in the case of a living witness is
thought to be balanced at least by the final conscience of the
dying man. Nobody, it has been said, would wish to die with a
lie on his lips. A dying declaration has got sanctity and a
person giving the dying declaration will be the last to give
untruth as he stands before his creator.
24. There is a legal maxim “nemo moriturus praesumitur
mentire” meaning, that a man will not meet his Maker with a
lie in his mouth. Woodroffe and Amir Ali, in their Treatise on
Evidence Act state:
“when a man is dying, the grave position in which he is
placed is held by law to be a sufficient ground for his
veracity and therefore the tests of oath and crossexamination
are dispensed with”.
25. The court has to consider each case in the circumstances
of the case. What value should be given to a dying declaration
is left to court, which on assessment of the circumstances and
the evidence and materials on record, will come to a
conclusion about the truth or otherwise of the version, be it
written, oral, verbal or by sign or by gestures.”
(Emphasis supplied)
59. This Court in Bhajju (supra) has observed as under:
“23. The “dying declaration” essentially means the statement
made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to the
circumstances of the transaction resulting into his death. The
admissibility of the dying declaration is based on the principle
that the sense of impending death produces in a man's mind,
the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man
under oath. The dying declaration is admissible upon the
consideration that the declaration was made in extremity,
when the maker is at the point of death and when every hope
of this world is gone, when every motive to file a false suit is
silenced in the mind and the person deposing is induced by the
most powerful considerations to speak the truth.
Xxx xxx xxx
32
26. The law is well settled that a dying declaration is
admissible in evidence and the admissibility is founded on the
principle of necessity. ...”
60. Since time immemorial, despite a general consensus of presuming
that the dying declaration is true, they have not been stricto-sensu accepted,
rather the general course of action has been that judge decides whether the
essentials of a dying declaration are met and if it can be admissible, once
done, it is upon the duty of the court to see the extent to which the dying
declaration is entitled to credit.
61. In India too, a similar pattern is followed, where the Courts are first
required to satisfy themselves that the dying declaration in question is
reliable and truthful before placing any reliance upon it. Thus, dying
declaration while carrying a presumption of being true must be wholly
reliable and inspire confidence. Where there is any suspicion over the
veracity of the same or the evidence on record shows that the dying
declaration is not true it will only be considered as a piece of evidence but
cannot be the basis for conviction alone.
62. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying
declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this
question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully
convinced of the truthfulness of the same. Certain factors below reproduced
can be considered to determine the same, however, they will only affect the
weight of the dying declaration and not its admissibility: -
(i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation
of death?
33
(ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest
opportunity? “Rule of First Opportunity”
(iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying
declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person?
(iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting,
tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested
party?
(v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly?
(vi) Whether, the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly
observe the incident?
(vii) Whether, the dying declaration has been consistent
throughout?
(viii) Whether, the dying declaration in itself is a manifestation /
fiction of the dying person’s imagination of what he thinks
transpired?
(ix) Whether, the dying declaration was itself voluntary?
(x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one
inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration?
(xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for
the deceased to make a dying declaration?
63. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the
accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go
in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive
piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was
voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not
enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the
accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.
64. It is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying
declaration alone in the cases where suspicion, like the case on hand is
raised, as regards the correctness of the dying declaration. In such cases,
the Court may have to look for some corroborative evidence by treating the
dying declaration only as a piece of evidence. The evidence and material
available on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at an
appropriate conclusion. The reason why we say so is that in the case on
34
hand, although the appellant-convict has been named in the two dying
declarations as a person who set the room on fire yet the surrounding
circumstances render such statement of the declarants very doubtful.
65. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406,
this Court, while examining the distinction between “proof beyond
reasonable doubt” and “suspicion” in para 13 has held as under:
“13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the
place of proof, and there is a large difference between
something that “may be” proved, and something that “will
be proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how
strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of
proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance
between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal
case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures
or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large
distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, must
be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable
evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is
condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must
be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance
between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must
maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and
sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of
dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and
comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as
well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought
on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice
is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so
demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the
accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an
imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair
doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.”
66. It may be true as said by this Court, speaking through Justice Krishna
Iyer in Dharm Das Wadhwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1974)
4 SCC 267, that the rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a
35
frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner
stuff and must take a practical view of the legitimate inferences flowing
from the evidence, circumstantial or direct. Even applying this principle,
we have a doubt as regards the complicity of the appellant-convict in the
crime.
67. In the present case, it is difficult to rest the conviction solely based
on the two dying declarations. At the cost of repetition, the PW-2 has been
otherwise also not believed by the High Court.
68. As discussed above, the oral evidence of the PW-4 Soni, also does
not inspire any confidence. We are not satisfied that the prosecution has
proved its case against the appellant-convict beyond reasonable doubt.
69. We, therefore, allow these appeals and acquit the appellant-convict
of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant-convict is, therefore,
directed to be released forthwith provided he is not required in connection
with any other case or cases.
……......………………………...J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…….….…………………………..J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
…….………..……………………..J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 23, 2023.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment