Law On Appreciation Of Dying Declaration Not Correctly Applied: Bombay HC
Law on Appreciation of Dying Declaration Not Correctly Applied: Bombay High Court
Background:
A dying declaration (DD) is a statement made by a person who is about to die, regarding the cause of their death or the circumstances leading to it. It is considered a vital piece of evidence in criminal cases, especially in murder or homicide trials.
Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act provides that statements made by a dying person, who believes their death is imminent, regarding the cause or circumstances of their death, are admissible as evidence.
Importance of Correct Appreciation:
The weight and credibility of a dying declaration are pivotal since it can be the sole basis for conviction.
Courts must apply strict judicial scrutiny while appreciating DDs.
Wrong appreciation or ignoring contradictions can lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals.
Bombay High Court’s Observations on Incorrect Application of Law:
The Bombay HC has pointed out that in some cases, the trial court or lower courts:
Fail to properly scrutinize the circumstances under which the DD was recorded.
Do not consider the mental state, voluntariness, and presence of any prompting.
Overlook inconsistencies or contradictions within the dying declaration or with other evidence.
Misapply the principle that DDs are to be accepted at face value without corroboration.
Ignore the fact that DDs should be weighed with caution, especially if contradictory or suspicious.
Key Legal Principles Regarding Dying Declarations:
No Corroboration Necessary but Preferable:
Supreme Court has held that DDs can be sole basis for conviction but corroboration is desirable, not mandatory.
Dying Declaration Must Be Voluntary and Unprompted:
The statement must be free from coaching or inducement.
Appreciation of Contradictions:
Minor contradictions do not necessarily discredit DD; however, material contradictions must be considered.
Circumstances of Recording:
Time, place, condition of declarant, language used, and manner of recording are crucial.
Judicial Caution Required:
Courts should be cautious and not convict solely on doubtful or inconsistent DD.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. Kishan @ Keshav v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 11 SCC 296
SC reiterated that DDs are important evidence but should be subjected to careful scrutiny.
Corroboration enhances the prosecution case but absence does not negate DD.
2. Subhash v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2020 Bom 145
Bombay HC held that improper appreciation of DD, ignoring contradictions and the manner in which it was recorded, led to miscarriage of justice.
The Court acquitted the accused because DD was not reliable.
3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
Laid down guidelines for appreciating dying declarations, emphasizing that it must be voluntary and true.
4. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 6 SCC 737
The SC held that contradictions and improbabilities in DD must be considered before placing reliance.
5. Rajesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2001 SC 274
The Court stressed that DD recorded after sufficient time of occurrence but without promptings and in a lucid condition can be reliable.
Summary Table:
Aspect | Correct Approach in Appreciation | Common Misapplication by Courts |
---|---|---|
Voluntariness | Must be free from coercion or prompting | Ignoring inducement or coaching |
Corroboration | Not mandatory but preferable | Over-relying on DD without corroboration |
Contradictions | Material contradictions must be examined | Overlooking contradictions or inconsistencies |
Mental and physical state | Declarant must be lucid and mentally competent | Ignoring condition of declarant |
Timing and circumstances | DD recorded promptly with due care | Delay or suspicious conditions ignored |
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court has emphasized that the law on appreciation of dying declarations is to be applied strictly and cautiously. Failure to correctly assess voluntariness, contradictions, or conditions under which the DD was recorded can result in miscarriage of justice. Courts must not blindly rely on dying declarations but evaluate them in the context of entire evidence and circumstances.
0 comments