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

 When dealing with multiple dying declarations, courts in India follow certain well-established principles to ensure that justice is served and that the declarations are reliable and admissible as evidence. The  Supreme Court judgment (Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 INSC 924) provides a comprehensive discussion of these principles, which can be summarized and explained as follows:

Principles to Be Followed in Case of Multiple Dying Declarations

1. Voluntariness, Reliability, and Mental Fitness

·       Every dying declaration must be voluntary, reliable, and made when the declarant was in a fit mental condition to make such a statement.

2. Consistency

·       Ideally, all dying declarations should be consistent. If there are inconsistencies, the court must assess whether they are material (i.e., significant enough to affect credibility) or minor.

3. Scrutiny of Inconsistencies

·       If inconsistencies exist, the court should:

o   Examine the nature of the inconsistencies.

o   Consider whether the inconsistencies are reconcilable or go to the core of the prosecution’s case.

o   Assess whether the inconsistencies relate to details or the substance of the accusation.

4. Corroboration with Other Evidence

·       In cases of inconsistency, the court may look for corroboration from other evidence on record to support the version given in the dying declarations.

5. Independent Assessment

·       Each dying declaration must be independently assessed on its own merits, and not rejected solely because of variations in other declarations.

6. Preference for Magistrate-Recorded Declarations

·       If multiple declarations exist, the one recorded by a Magistrate or higher officer is generally given more weight, provided there are no suspicions about its truthfulness.

7. Medical Fitness and Surrounding Circumstances

·       The medical fitness of the declarant at the time of making the statement is crucial, especially when there are doubts about the declarant’s ability to speak or understand due to injuries or medication.

·       The court must also consider the possibility of tutoring or influence by relatives or others, and the circumstances under which each declaration was made.

8. Hearsay and Interested Witnesses

·       Declarations relayed through multiple persons (hearsay) or by interested witnesses (such as close relatives) require corroboration and careful scrutiny. Statements lacking in detail or made by interested parties without independent support may be viewed with suspicion.

Application in the Abhishek Sharma Case

In the referenced judgment, the Supreme Court examined four dying declarations (DD-I to DD-IV):

·       DD-I: Relayed through a police officer; considered hearsay and not directly admissible.

·       DD-II: Brief hospital record with insufficient detail and a suspicious gap before the accused’s name was inserted.

·       DD-III: Detailed police statement, but no medical evidence on the declarant’s fitness at the time, and no Magistrate present.

·       DD-IV: Statement to the mother (an interested witness), lacking corroboration and with inconsistencies compared to other declarations.

The Court found:

·       Material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.

·       No declaration was made before a Magistrate or with clear medical certification of fitness.

·       No independent evidence corroborated the declarations.

Consequently, the Court ruled out all four dying declarations and acquitted the accused, emphasizing that when multiple dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained solely on their basis.

Summary Table: Key Judicial Principles

Principle	Explanation
Voluntariness & Reliability	Must be voluntary, reliable, and made in a fit mental state
Consistency	Declarations should be consistent; material inconsistencies are problematic
Scrutiny of Inconsistencies	Examine if inconsistencies are reconcilable or go to the root of the case
Corroboration	Other evidence may be used to corroborate inconsistent declarations
Independent Assessment	Each declaration is assessed on its own merit
Magistrate Preference	Declarations before a Magistrate are preferred if free from suspicion
Medical Fitness	Declarant’s medical condition at the time is crucial
Hearsay & Interested Witnesses	Such declarations need corroboration and careful scrutiny

 

In essence:

Courts must carefully scrutinize multiple dying declarations, focusing on voluntariness, consistency, corroboration, and the declarant’s medical condition. Inconsistencies, lack of detail, or declarations from interested witnesses without independent support can render such evidence unreliable and insufficient for conviction.  

 

Print Page