‘State of Rajasthan vs. Shravan Ram & Anr’, Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2007
(Decided on 01.05.2013)
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“It is not the plurality of the dying
declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution
case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit
mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration but the statement
should be consistent throughout. However, if some inconsistencies are noticed
between one dying declaration and the other, the Court has to examine the
nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not and
while scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a
situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various
surrounding facts and circumstances. [Para 18]
In
this case two dying declarations were before the court for consideration: (i)
stated to have been made before a witness, a neighbor who made statement under
section 161 Cr.PC, who was declared hostile, and (ii) before ASI having
signature of witness and doctors
The
Court held:
“We have gone through both the dying
declarations and there are not only material contradictions in both the
declarations but also inter se discrepancies in the depositions of the
witnesses as well. In the first dying declaration recorded by ASI, signed by
PW13, there is no mention of the names of any of the accused persons and the
deceased had stated that she could not recognize the person who set her ablaze
even though the declaration was in consonance with Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan
Police Rules, 1965. [Para 21]
“So far as the statement of PW3 – Prem Chand
recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. marked as Exh. P6 is concerned, the
deceased was only abusing her father in law and that was not even corroborated
by PW4 or PW5 and PW3 himself turned hostile. Due to discrepancies and
contradictions between the two dying declarations and also in the absence of
any other reliable evidence, in our view, the High Court is justified in
reversing the order of conviction which calls for no interference by this Court.”
[Para 22]
The
Court noted following case laws:
Smt.
Kamla v. State of Punjab (1993) 1 SCC 1, the Court held as follows:
“A dying declaration should satisfy all the necessary tests
and one such important test is that if there are more than one dying
declaration they should be consistent particularly in material particulars.”
Kishan
Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 1 SCC 310, the Court held has follows:
“Examining these two dying declarations, we find not only that
they gave two conflicting versions but there is inter se discrepancies in the
depositions of the witnesses given in support of the other dying declaration
dated 6.11.1976. Finally, in the dying declaration before a Magistrate on which
possibly more reliance could have been placed the deceased did not name any of
the accused. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that these two dying
declarations do not bring home the guilt of the appellant. High Court,
therefore, erred in placing reliance on it by erroneously evaluating them.”
Lella
Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. (2004) 9 SCC 713, in which Court had occasion to
consider the legality and acceptability of two dying declarations. Noticing the
inconsistency between the two dying declarations, the Court held that it is not
safe to act solely on the said declarations to convict the accused persons
State
of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Khaja Hussain (2009) 15 SCC 120, in which the Court
rejected the appeal filed against the acquittal holding that it was not a case
where the variation between the two dying declarations was trivial in nature.
Sharda
v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 2 SCC 85, the Court dealt with three dying
declarations. Noticing inconsistencies between dying declarations, the Court
set aside the sentence ordered by Sessions Judge as well as High Court and held
as follows:
“Though a dying declaration is entitled and is still recognised
by law to be given greater weightage but it has also to be kept in mind that
the accused had no chance of cross-examination. Such a right of cross-examination
is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath. This is the
reason, generally, the court insists that the dying declaration should be such which
inspires full confidence of the court of its correctness. The court has to be
on guard that such statement of the deceased was not as a result of either
tutoring, prompting or product of imagination. The court must be further
satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear
opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the court is satisfied
that the aforesaid requirement and also to the fact that declaration was true
and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further
corroboration.
To see full text follow the link: