Dying Declaration Cannot Be Reason For The Conviction Of Accused When It Resulted In Acquittal Of Another...
Dying Declaration Cannot Be the Sole Reason for Conviction When It Results in Acquittal of Another Accused
Background and Principle
A dying declaration (DD) is a statement made by a person who is on the verge of death, regarding the cause or circumstances of their death. Under Indian law, dying declarations are given significant weight because the person making them is presumed to be free from the motive to lie, knowing that death is imminent.
However, the courts have consistently held that:
While a dying declaration is an important piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for convicting an accused if it creates inconsistencies such as acquitting one accused while convicting another on the same set of facts.
The conviction must be supported by corroborative evidence — either direct or circumstantial.
When the same dying declaration leads to acquittal of one accused but conviction of another, it raises a serious doubt about the reliability of the declaration, the investigation, or the trial process.
Reasoning by the Courts
Presumption of Truthfulness but Not Infallibility
The law presumes a dying declaration to be truthful (Section 32(1), Evidence Act). But this presumption is rebuttable if there are inconsistencies or contradictions.
Requirement of Corroboration
Supreme Court and High Courts have ruled that conviction based solely on dying declaration without corroboration is risky.
Logical Consistency
When a dying declaration results in acquittal of one accused but conviction of another, courts often question the authenticity or interpretation of the DD, unless clear reasons justify the differential treatment.
Benefit of Doubt
In criminal cases, any reasonable doubt arising out of such contradictions benefits the accused.
Important Case Laws
1. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 4 SCC 329
The Supreme Court observed that a dying declaration is valuable evidence but cannot be the sole basis for conviction if it is not reliable or is contradictory.
The Court emphasized the need for corroboration and that inconsistencies must be scrutinized.
If the dying declaration results in the acquittal of one accused, the Court said it would be unsafe to convict another based solely on that declaration.
2. Rameshbhai Chaganbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 7 SCC 610
The Court held that conviction cannot rest solely on the dying declaration if it acquits one of the accused involved.
Corroboration by independent evidence is necessary.
The Court acquitted the accused as the dying declaration was found to be inconsistent.
3. Suresh v. State of Haryana, (2003) 6 SCC 171
It was held that the dying declaration should be free from doubt and inconsistencies.
If it leads to inconsistent results — acquittal of some accused and conviction of others — the court must carefully examine the circumstances.
The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when the dying declaration is not consistent.
4. Balkrishna Ramachandra Chawak v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 820
The Court ruled that conviction cannot be based solely on dying declaration without any other supporting evidence.
Especially where one accused is acquitted and another convicted on the same dying declaration, such conviction would be unsafe.
Application in Practice
Courts scrutinize the contents and circumstances under which the dying declaration was recorded.
They look for discrepancies or any contradictory evidence.
The medical evidence and investigation reports are also examined for consistency.
When the dying declaration acquits one accused but convicts another, courts tend to lean towards acquittal, giving the accused the benefit of doubt.
This principle ensures fairness and safeguards against wrongful convictions based on questionable testimony.
Summary
| Point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Dying Declaration | Important but not infallible evidence |
| Presumption | Presumed truthful but rebuttable |
| Corroboration | Essential before relying solely on dying declaration |
| Inconsistency: Acquittal of one, Conviction of another | Creates serious doubt about reliability and fairness |
| Legal Consequence | Courts generally give benefit of doubt and may acquit accused |
RELATED Blog
comments