Summary
The Court restored acquittals in a burning-death prosecution because the purported dying declaration was unsafe as the sole basis for conviction. Sedative medication, doubts about the victim’s fitness, conflicting accounts of burns and thumb impression, unusual recording features and unproved motive undermined its reliability. The High Court had summarily displaced a reasoned, possible view of the trial court without addressing these defects.
Issues
- Whether the disputed dying declaration reliably established homicidal death at the appellants’ hands.
- Whether the High Court properly exercised its power to reverse acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Recognized admissibility of a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of death, but required careful scrutiny of truth, voluntariness and reliability before conviction solely on that basis. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 27)
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applied restraint against reversing a reasoned possible acquittal merely because a different view appears more probable, while preserving appellate power to reassess evidence. (¶¶ 23, 24, 26)
Held
- A true, voluntary and reliable dying declaration may alone sustain conviction; there is no universal requirement of corroboration. Burn percentage is not by itself decisive, and recording by a magistrate is preferable where feasible but not legally compulsory. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 22)
- Here, the declaration’s unusually precise narrative, the victim’s severe burns and sedative treatment, delayed fitness endorsement, and conflicting medical and police evidence about her hands and thumb impression created substantial doubts. (¶¶ 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24)
- The prosecution did not establish the asserted motive. The family witnesses’ evidence and conduct supported a competing account, and the High Court failed to evaluate these matters before relying on the doctor and recording officer. (¶¶ 20, 22, 24, 25, 26)
- A possible trial-court view should not be displaced merely because the appellate court prefers another view. Reappraisal remains available, but reversal requires identifying perversity, an unsustainable conclusion or material misreading causing miscarriage of justice. (¶ 23)
- The trial court had critically assessed the declaration and surrounding evidence. Its reasons and the unresolved doubts made conviction on the declaration unsafe. (¶¶ 22, 24, 26, 27)
Result
Both appeals allowed; High Court conviction and life sentences set aside and appellants set free. As they were already on bail, their bail bonds were discharged.