Dying Declaration Concocted Document, Ought To Have Been Discarded Outright By Trial Court: Bombay HC
🔹 Background on Dying Declarations
A dying declaration (DD) is a statement made by a person who is in the immediate expectation of death, regarding the cause or circumstances of their impending death. Under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dying declarations are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Dying declarations have high evidentiary value, often forming the cornerstone of prosecution in homicide and grievous hurt cases.
🔹 Legal Importance & Reliability
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly held that a dying declaration must be voluntary, truthful, and reliable.
It must be free from any influence, pressure, or concoction.
If a dying declaration is found to be concocted, manufactured, or inconsistent, it loses its evidentiary value and ought to be rejected.
🔹 What Does “Concocted Document” Mean?
A document or statement that is fabricated, manipulated, or fabricated with false information.
A declaration influenced by interference of interested parties or fabricated after the event.
A declaration that does not match the medical or factual evidence on record or is inconsistent with other material.
🔹 Bombay High Court’s View: Dying Declaration as a Concocted Document
The Bombay High Court has held that:
When the trial court finds that a dying declaration is concocted or unreliable, it should discard it outright rather than rely on it to convict the accused.
Reasons for outright rejection:
The dignity of justice demands that convictions must be based on reliable and trustworthy evidence.
A concocted DD amounts to tampering with truth and miscarriage of justice.
No court should allow fabricated statements to influence judgment.
🔹 Key Case Laws on Concocted Dying Declarations
1. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 1902
The Supreme Court held that if the dying declaration is found to be concocted or doubtful, it cannot form the basis of conviction.
The Court emphasized corroboration is necessary if the DD is suspicious.
2. Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1
Though primarily on FIR registration, it reinforced the importance of fair and truthful statements in criminal proceedings.
A fabricated statement or declaration cannot be used to convict.
3. Nand Kishore v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 430
The Court held that if a DD is inherently improbable or inconsistent with the facts, it should be discarded.
No conviction should be based solely on such a declaration.
4. Bombay High Court – (Case Examples)
The Court has repeatedly taken a strict stance on concocted dying declarations, especially where there is contradiction with medical evidence or previous statements.
When it finds that the DD is not spontaneous but coached, it directs acquittal or retrial without considering the DD.
🔹 Factors Indicating a Concocted Dying Declaration
Presence of contradictions or inconsistencies with medical evidence.
Evidence of coaching or influence by interested parties.
Delay in recording the DD, allowing time for fabrication.
Contradiction with other reliable witness statements.
Implausible or exaggerated allegations inconsistent with facts.
🔹 Practical Implications for Trial Courts
Trial courts must carefully scrutinize the dying declaration for voluntariness and truthfulness.
If found concocted, it must be discarded outright and the accused should not be convicted solely on it.
Courts should look for corroborative evidence before relying on DD.
🔹 Summary Table
| Aspect | Principle |
|---|---|
| Nature of Dying Declaration | Admissible exception, usually reliable |
| If Found Concocted | Must be discarded outright |
| Basis for Conviction | Should not be solely based on concocted DD |
| Role of Trial Court | Scrutinize thoroughly for voluntariness and reliability |
| Need for Corroboration | Essential if DD is doubtful or suspicious |
🔹 Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s stance is clear: a dying declaration found to be concocted cannot be used to convict an accused. It must be rejected outright to prevent miscarriage of justice. This underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that only truthful and reliable evidence forms the basis of conviction, maintaining the sanctity of the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments