The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“It is trite law that it is unsafe to base
reliance on the statement made under Section 161 Cr.PC. as dying declaration
without any corroboration. Although corroboration as such is not essential but
it is expedient to have the same, in order to strengthen the evidentiary value
of declaration” [Para 9]
In
this case prosecution relied on dying declaration stated to have been made
before a witness, a neighbor who made statement under section 161 Cr.PC, who
was declared hostile.
On
the facts of the case the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“PW3 was declared as hostile. Further, PW4
and PW5, the neighbours, who have stated to have seen the deceased in a burning
state and raising hue and cry, neither disclosed the cause of death nor
mentioned the names of any of the accused persons. Consequently, the dying
declaration made by Prem Chand remained uncorroborated.” [Para 9]
“..we are of the view that no reliance could
be placed on the statement made by PW3 – Prem Chand under Section 161 Cr.PC.
before the police in the absence of any corroboration. Over and above, PW3 has
himself turned hostile.” [Para 11]
The
Court also noted following case laws:
Arvind
Singh v. State of Bihar (2001) 6 SCC 407 while dealing with the case of oral
dying declaration the court stated as follows:
“Dying declaration shall have to be dealt with care and
caution. Corroboration is not essential but it is expedient to have the same,
in order to strengthen the evidentiary value of declaration. Independent
witnesses may not be available but there should be proper care and caution in
the matter of acceptance of such a statement as trustworthy evidence.”
Bhajju
Alias Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327 while dealing
with admissibility of dying declaration the court held as follows:
“The law is well settled that a dying declaration is
admissible in evidence and the admissibility is founded on the principle of
necessity. A dying declaration, if found reliable, can form the basis of a
conviction. A court of facts is not excluded from acting upon an uncorroborated
dying declaration for finding conviction. The dying declaration, as a piece of
evidence, stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence. It has to
be judged and appreciated in light of the surrounding circumstances and its
weight determined by reference to the principle governing the weighing of
evidence. If in a given case a particular dying declaration suffers from any
infirmity, either of its own or as disclosed by the other evidence adduced in
the case or the circumstances coming to its notice, the court may, as a rule of
prudence, look for corroboration and if the infirmities are such as would
render a dying declaration so infirm that it pricks the conscience of the
court, the same may be refused to be accepted as forming basis of the
conviction.”
To see full text follow the link: