Share :
SUPREME COURT’S STANCE ON DYING DECLARATIONS
In Rajendra S/O Ramdas Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court of India has provided a comprehensive analysis of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declarations. The apex court’s bench dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the Appellant.
BACKGROUND
The case concerns the tragic death of appellant’s wife, a police constable who sustained severe burn injuries on July 22, 2002. In her dying declaration, she implicated her husband, the appellant, and her brother-in-law, accusing them of setting her on fire by pouring kerosene over her body. She succumbed to her injuries within two days of the incident.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) for murder read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine. The High Court dismissed his appeal against the conviction, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court.
It was evident that during the trial, 13 witnesses were examined, and statements of the accused, including the appellant, were recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). However, the defence argued that it was a case of suicide, not homicide and presented evidence, including the testimony of a doctor, to support their claim.
LEGAL ISSUE
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was the admissibility and evidentiary value of wife’s dying declaration. The court conducted an extensive examination of the principles governing dying declarations, as outlined in Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and supported by various precedents.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The contention of the appellant in this case specifically highlights that there was no intention of the appellant to harm or hurt his wife, instead they stated that the occurrence of the incident happened because of suicide and not homicide. Further, the appellant challenged the testimonies of witnesses presented by the prosecution. They argued that the evidence provided by these witnesses was unreliable and inconsistent.
The appellant asserted that he was falsely implicated in the case due to personal vendetta or misunderstanding. He claimed that there was no motive for him to harm his wife. Lastly, he said that the way the courts handled the case was not fair, and the facts were not considered properly.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The state argued that the appellant was responsible for his wife’s death. They said there was enough evidence to show that he was involved in the incident where she got badly burned and later died. They relied on witness statements and other evidence collected during the investigation to prove their point. They argued that the evidence presented during the trial clearly implicated him in the offense.
The state contested the appellant’s defence of suicide, asserting that the evidence pointed towards homicide rather than suicide. They challenged the credibility of the appellant’s arguments and maintained that he should be held accountable for his actions. The state contended that the trial court and the High Court had properly considered the evidence and legal principles in convicting the appellant. They argued that there were no procedural irregularities that would warrant overturning the previous judgments.
COURT’S JUDGMENT
The honourable court examined all the information presented during the trial including the testimonies of the witnesses along with the evidence collected. Further, they also considered reports from experts along with the dying declaration of the deceased. Accordingly, they determined the rules and laws that applied to the case. Therefore, after scrutinizing all the aspects the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction and dismissed his appeal.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
Upon the analysis of the judgment several observations can be made:
- Authenticity and Reliability of Dying Declaration: The court stressed that upon confirming the authenticity of a dying declaration, finding it credible and free from any coaching, it can serve as the sole basis for conviction without requiring corroboration.
- Scrutiny of Dying Declaration: The court emphasized on the importance of closely examining a dying declaration to ascertain that it was not influenced by coaching, prompting, or imagination, and that the deceased was in a sound mental and physical condition to make such a statement.
- Evidentiary Value of Dying Declaration: Drawing from previous judgments, the court reaffirmed that a dying declaration holds a “sacrosanct status” as evidence, originating directly from the deceased victim. When the court is convinced of its veracity, a dying declaration can alone suffice for conviction without requiring corroboration.
- Inconsistencies and Improvements in Witness Testimony: The court acknowledged that there were certain inconsistencies and improvements in the testimony of prosecution witnesses but deemed them insignificant. The court noted that such variations are normal when recalling events after a considerable passage of time.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
