Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000430-000430 – 2018 |
| Diary Number | 7284/2015 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent on dying declarations and appellate interference |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on dying declarations and appellate review of acquittals |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; Evidence Act interpretation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration recorded by a competent magistrate, after obtaining medical opinion on fitness, is admissible and may stand alone as conclusive proof of the accused’s guilt if voluntary, truthful and reliable. Minor discrepancies—such as slight variations in the time of recording—do not undermine its credibility. Appellate courts may overturn an acquittal only when the High Court’s reasoning is perverse, legally erroneous or a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P.; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar; State of M.P. v. Phoolchand Rathore; Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim; State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg; Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay; Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra; State of U.P. v. Veerpal; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bogam Chandraiah; Dasin Bai @ Shanti Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh; Purshottam Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi); Bhajju v. State of M.P.; Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 07 Dec 2009 the husband allegedly poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire. She suffered 70% burns and died on 15 Jan 2010. A dying declaration was recorded by the Tehsildar on 08 Dec 2009 after medical clearance. The trial court convicted under Section 302 IPC; the High Court acquitted by doubting timing discrepancies and the manner of recording. The Supreme Court restored the conviction, finding the dying declaration voluntary and reliable. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering dying-declaration and acquittal-review issues |
| Follows | Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (principles on magistrate-recorded dying declarations) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a dying declaration recorded by a magistrate, with medical fitness certification, can alone sustain a Section 302 IPC conviction despite minor witness discrepancies.
- Reiterates that corroboration of a dying declaration is prudential, not mandatory; reliability and voluntariness are the decisive tests.
- Clarifies that hyper-technical objections (e.g., presence of police, small timing errors) cannot invalidate a properly recorded declaration.
- Emphasises that appellate courts may disturb High Court acquittals only in cases of perverse reasoning, misreading of evidence or grave miscarriage of justice.
- Affirms that absence of detailed proof of motive does not weaken a direct dying-declaration-based prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Appellate Review: Reiterated that this Court will not lightly overturn a High Court’s acquittal unless it is based on perverse or legally erroneous reasoning.
- Principles on Dying Declarations: Applied Section 32(1) Evidence Act principles—dying declarations need not be corroborated if they are voluntary, truthful and recorded properly by a competent magistrate after medical clearance (Khushal Rao; Paniben).
- Assessment of Discrepancies: Held that minor discrepancies in timing (11.00 a.m. vs. “evening”) do not go to the root of credibility when satisfactorily explained.
- Rejection of Hostile and Defence Evidence: Declined to rely on hostile witnesses lacking direct knowledge or corroboration and defence pleas of self-immolation unsupported by reliable evidence.
- Motive Not Fatal: Confirmed that in presence of direct credible evidence (dying declaration), lack of elaborate proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution (Bogam Chandraiah; Chopra).
- Restoration of Conviction: Concluded that the dying declaration was voluntary, professed in clear terms, and recorded in accordance with law; trial court conviction restored.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of Himachal Pradesh):
- The dying declaration was recorded properly by Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate in presence of independent officers after medical fitness was certified.
- Minor timing inconsistencies do not undermine the consistent testimony of PW-1, PW-10 and PW-2.
- Hostile and defence witnesses are inherently unreliable and uncorroborated; High Court erred in relying on them.
Respondent (Amicus for Accused):
- Initial FIR did not name the accused; earliest version lacked specific allegation.
- Presence of police at recording suggests possible manipulation; recording procedure doubtful.
- Defence evidence suggests self-immolation due to humiliation; no credible proof that husband poured kerosene.
- Lack of strong proof of motive and suspicious nature of dying declaration justify acquittal.
Factual Background
On 07 December 2009, the respondent allegedly poured kerosene on his wife at their home in Chamba and set her ablaze, inflicting 70% burns. Neighbours and the respondent attempted rescue; he sustained minor burns. She was treated at Chamba Hospital and later transferred to Tanda, succumbing on 15 January 2010. An FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered on 08 December 2009. The Tehsildar recorded a dying declaration on 08 December 2009 after medical clearance. The trial court convicted for murder; the High Court acquitted; the Supreme Court restored conviction.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admissibility of statements made by a deceased about cause of death or circumstances, without requiring corroboration if proven voluntary and reliable.
- Article 136, Constitution of India: Exceptional power to interfere with High Court acquittals only where reasoning is perverse or results in grave miscarriage of justice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms settled principles on dying declarations and appellate interference.