The Supreme Court Establishes 11 factors for Assessing the Significance of Dying Declarations
In the appeal filed by the convict against the judgment and order rendered by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the court upheld the conviction and death sentence issued by the Sessions judge for the crimes punishable under Sections 302, 436, and 326-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a full bench consisting of BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., set aside the conviction order. The bench held that a dying declaration, though presumed to be truthful, must be entirely reliable and instill confidence. If there are doubts about its authenticity or if evidence suggests that the dying declaration is false, it cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction.
Background: The convict, who had been married twice, had a son (now deceased) from his first marriage. He lived with his sister and two brothers (also deceased). The prosecution contended that the convict, due to opposition from the deceased brothers against his second marriage, set them on fire while they slept in one room. The sister, who was a witness, claimed to have seen the convict ignite the fire and lock the room from outside before fleeing. The dying declarations of the convict's son and one brother were recorded, wherein they accused the convict of setting them ablaze. The convict received a death sentence and fines from the Trial Court for the Section 302 IPC offense, life imprisonment for the Section 436 IPC offense, and life imprisonment (with fines) for the Section 326-A IPC offense.
Issue: Did the prosecution sufficiently prove the convict's guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Analysis: The court reviewed the two dying declarations and compared them with the oral testimony of eyewitnesses. It questioned the absence of a dying declaration from the second brother. Additionally, the dying declarations did not mention the presence of witnesses during the incident, implying that the rescue efforts were attributed solely to a neighbor. The court noted that the oral evidence indicated that the convict had ignited the fire and fled. However, this contradicted the dying declarations, which did not mention the witnesses. The court observed that these inconsistencies remained unexplained.
The court cited "Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710" and recognized the special value of dying declarations. These declarations are seen as reliable due to the impending death of the declarant and the absence of personal motives for falsehood. However, the court cautioned that circumstances could affect the truthfulness of such declarations. The court found that the dying declarations in this case were questionable due to their mode of recording. Even though the Investigating Officer claimed to have video-graphed the recording, the court was uncertain about their evidentiary value.
The court disputed the likelihood of the convict being present at the crime scene after starting the fire and found that the prosecution failed to explain this. The court acknowledged that unusual behavior alone couldn't establish guilt. Ultimately, the court held that the dying declarations did not inspire confidence, and the oral evidence lacked consistency with them. If the declarations had aligned with the oral testimony, the outcome might have been different. The court emphasized that dying declarations are neither strictly accepted nor universally credible. Judges must assess their credibility based on case-specific circumstances.
The court presented factors to determine the veracity of dying declarations, clarifying that these factors affect the weight but not the admissibility of such declarations. Those factors are :
1. Whether the person making the statement was in expectation of death?
2. Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity?
3. “Rule of First Opportunity” Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person?
4. Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting, tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested party?
5. Whether the statement was not recorded properly?
6. Whether the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly observe the incident?
7. Whether the dying declaration has been consistent throughout?
8. Whether the dying declaration is a manifestation / fiction of the dying person's imagination of what he thinks transpired?
9. Whether the dying declaration was itself voluntary?
10. In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration?
11. Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for the deceased to make a dying declaration?
Consequently, the court acquitted the convict, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.