The Gauhati High Court holds that conviction can rest on an oral dying declaration given to related witnesses if found voluntary, consistent, and trustworthy; applies Supreme Court precedent to clarify scrutiny standards, and reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) when grave and sudden provocation is established due to intoxication. The ruling narrows the scope of Section 302 IPC convictions in similar factual matrices and serves as binding authority for courts under its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL.A(J)/74/2019 of PRABIN PHUKAN @ BIRA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM |
| CNR | GAHC010212082019 |
| Date of Registration | 02-09-2019 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA (Concurring) |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Mitali Thakuria |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Gauhati High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Modifies Sessions Court conviction; applies and clarifies Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code (IPC); Evidence Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a conviction can rest solely on an oral dying declaration to related witnesses if the declaration is found to be voluntary, consistent, and trustworthy, with no evidence of enmity or tutoring. Relatedness alone does not invalidate a testimony, but greater scrutiny is required. The Court found that, in this case, the appellants, under the influence of liquor, were subject to grave and sudden provocation after being admonished, depriving them of self-control; thus, Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC applied. The conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part I/34 IPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court expounded on the evidentiary value of dying declarations, especially oral declarations given to related witnesses. It endorsed the “rule of prudence” requiring heightened scrutiny but not exclusion of such evidence. Detailed reference was made to guidelines for accepting dying declarations, standards for applying common intention (Section 34 IPC), and the precise requirements to invoke Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, with a nuanced discussion on grave and sudden provocation, particularly in the context of intoxication. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellants, brothers, under the influence of alcohol, were creating a nuisance and were admonished by the deceased. A quarrel ensued, following which the deceased was stabbed. The dying declaration was orally given by the deceased to several related witnesses, who testified to this effect. No prior enmity was shown. The trial court convicted under Section 302/34 IPC, but after considering the evidence, the High Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part I/34 IPC, citing grave and sudden provocation and the state of intoxication. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts within Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh (under the Gauhati High Court’s jurisdiction) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (on factual and legal matrix) |
| Overrules | Modifies the Sessions Court’s conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC in Sessions Case No.104(NL)/2018 |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedents cited in the judgment, e.g., Irfan alias Naka, Md. Jabbar Ali, Kamal Khudal, Rajendra, Laxman, Virendra Singh, Krishnamurthy, Vijay alias Vijaykumar, Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak, etc. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Conviction can be based solely on an oral dying declaration given to related/interested witnesses, provided the testimony is intensely scrutinized and found trustworthy, voluntary, and untutored.
- No absolute bar to relying on the testimony of interested/related witnesses; “rule of prudence” rather than a strict rule of law.
- Translation inaccuracies in testimony can be material; courts must refer to original vernacular records to ascertain the real content.
- Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (grave and sudden provocation) may be invoked even when the accused is intoxicated and the provocation would not affect a “reasonable person” in the ordinary sense, provided it deprives the accused of self-control.
- The distinction between murder (Section 302 IPC) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) is clarified in the context of intoxication and provocation—important for framing defence strategies.
- The mere absence of premeditated intention, especially if intoxication and sudden provocation are proved, may warrant alteration of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Failure of accused to explain incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 CrPC allows court to draw adverse inferences.
- Extra-judicial confessions, even if made to prosecution witnesses and among co-accused blaming each other, may serve as a corroborative link.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first examined the evidentiary value of oral dying declarations per Supreme Court precedents, distinguishing between the rule of prudence (requiring heightened scrutiny for related/interested witnesses) and rules of law (allowing conviction on such testimony if trustworthy and untainted).
- Applied factors from Irfan alias Naka (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060) for evaluating dying declarations: expectation of death, opportunity, voluntariness, consistency, absence of prompting/tutoring, physical/mental fitness, etc. Concluded that the dying declaration passed these tests.
- The division bench distinguished between translation mistakes and original evidence, rejecting challenges based on translation discrepancies.
- Cited and applied the principle from Raju (2012) and Md. Jabbar Ali (2023): evidence of interested witnesses is not to be disregarded per se but must be carefully scrutinized.
- Found that the state of intoxication and the deceased’s sudden admonition constituted grave and sudden provocation leading to loss of self-control, thus satisfying Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC as explained in Vijay alias Vijaykumar (2025).
- Discarded the defense plea under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight), holding that no mutual provocation or fight was proved.
- The Court held that use of a dangerous weapon (knife) on a vital body part, even in a state of provocation and intoxication, elevates the offence to Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with intention).
- Cited authorities on constructive/vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC (Krishnamurthy, Virendra Singh), holding it applicable due to common intention developed at the scene.
- The bench set aside the conviction for murder and substituted it with conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I/34 IPC), reducing the sentence accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner/Appellant:
- Contended that the conviction rested solely on an oral dying declaration given to related witnesses; such evidence should be scrutinized with suspicion and not accepted without corroboration.
- Argued there was no evidence the deceased was mentally fit to give a dying declaration.
- Suggested possibility of tutoring/prompting; dying declaration could be fabricated.
- Pointed out testimony discrepancies (distance from house to scene, sequence of events, who heard what, etc.).
- Alternative plea: If conviction not set aside, the facts attract Exception 1 & 4 to Section 300 IPC due to provocation and absence of premeditation—thus, at most, Section 304 Part-II or Part-I IPC should apply.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents (Irfan alias Naka, Md. Jabbar Ali).
Respondent/State:
- Maintained there was no infirmity with the trial court’s findings.
- Submitted that testimonies of PWs regarding the dying declaration were consistent, voluntary, and unshaken in cross-examination.
- No prior enmity existed; hence, no motive for false implication.
- Cited Kamal Khudal v. State of Assam and Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra to support the evidentiary sufficiency of oral dying declarations, even from related witnesses.
- Asserted that corroboration is not required if the dying declaration is found trustworthy and untutored.
Factual Background
The case arose from a fatal incident where two brothers, under the influence of alcohol, created a nuisance on the road. When they were admonished by the deceased, a quarrel ensued, and the deceased was stabbed with a knife. The deceased made an oral dying declaration to his wife, cousin, brother, and nephew, naming the appellants as the assailants. The FIR was registered under Section 302/34 IPC. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302/34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, assessed the credibility of related witness testimonies and examined the applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder.
- Section 300 IPC (Exception 1): Grave and sudden provocation negates murder, reducing culpability to homicide not amounting to murder. Court applied an objective test (reasonable man standard), but considered intoxication as relevant to the loss of self-control.
- Section 304 Part I IPC: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, committed with intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death. Applied due to absence of premeditation and presence of grave provocation and intoxication.
- Section 34 IPC: Common intention—constructive/vicarious liability established by participation and joint action at the scene.
- Indian Evidence Act Section 32: Dying declaration—court reaffirmed its admissibility and outlined guidelines for prudence.
- Section 313 CrPC: Adverse inference may be drawn from blanket denials by the accused during examination.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion—the judgment was delivered by Justice Michael Zothankhuma with Justice Mitali Thakuria concurring.
Procedural Innovations
- The bench ensured accuracy by cross-checking translation discrepancies in the original vernacular records, establishing the importance of referring to primary language records when evaluating witness testimony.
- Directed prompt payment of amicus curiae fees by the Assam State Legal Services Authority in recognition of effective legal assistance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies and clarifies existing Supreme Court law regarding dying declarations and Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Reconciles and distinguishes conflicting lower court rulings on the weight to be given to oral dying declarations by related witnesses.