Summary
The dying declaration was sufficiently reliable to sustain Pappi @ Mashkoor’s murder conviction without corroboration. It attributed no specific assisting act to Naeema or Naeem, so their convictions were set aside and they were acquitted.
Issues
- Could the dying declaration, standing alone, support a conviction?
- Did the dying declaration establish a specific role for each of the three accused in the murder?
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The dying declaration identified Pappi @ Mashkoor as the person who poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze, sustaining his murder conviction. It said only that the other two accused aided him, without specifying how; they received the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- A dying declaration may alone sustain a conviction if it is true, voluntary, coherent and consistent, and the deceased was fit to make it; corroboration is a rule of prudence, not an absolute legal requirement. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The declaration was reliable as to Pappi @ Mashkoor: the recorder and doctor’s evidence supported the deceased’s fitness, and the material testimony that the declaration was recorded was not challenged in cross-examination. It could sustain his conviction without independent corroboration. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- The declaration attributed pouring kerosene and setting the deceased alight to Pappi @ Mashkoor, but gave no specific account of how Naeema or Naeem assisted. They were entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Naeema’s and Naeem’s convictions and sentences were set aside; they were acquitted and directed to be released unless required in another case. Pappi @ Mashkoor’s appeal was dismissed.