Summary
Murder convictions were upheld on two reliable dying declarations made by a victim with 100% burns, first to a doctor and later to a police officer. The evidence established his mental fitness and the declarations’ voluntary, coherent character. The absence of a Magistrate, attestation or independent corroboration did not invalidate them, and the suggested self-immolation account was unreliable hearsay.
Issues
- When a dying declaration may be the sole basis of conviction.
- Whether 100% burns or absence of Magistrate recording invalidated these declarations.
- Whether the evidence justified murder convictions of both appellants or a lesser offence.
Held
- A voluntary and trustworthy dying declaration made in a fit state of mind may sustain conviction without corroboration. Suspicious or infirm declarations require corroborative support; the court must closely scrutinise reliability, freedom from prompting and the declarant’s capacity. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The percentage or severity of burns alone does not decide capacity to make a declaration. Here medical evidence and the statements’ coherent particulars established fitness; the thumb impression was not ruled out by the evidence of burns on the dorsum of the hands. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 25.2, 25.3)
- Magistrate recording and attestation are safeguards to secure credibility, but their absence does not automatically exclude a declaration that satisfies judicial scrutiny. The doctor’s contemporaneous history and the officer’s later statement were reliable on the evidence. (¶¶ 21, 25.1, 25.5)
- The self-immolation version introduced during cross-examination was remote hearsay, contradicted by the witness’s admission that he had not heard such a statement. Its rejection did not depend on formally declaring that witness hostile. (¶¶ 26, 26.1, 26.2)
- Pouring kerosene and setting the victim alight established intention to cause death, excluding reduction to Section 304 Part II. The first appellant’s presence with the second during the threats and burning supported his Section 302/34 liability despite the absence of an individually assigned overt act in the later declaration. (¶¶ 27.2, 27.5, 27.6, 28)
Result
Both appeals dismissed. Convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the life sentences remained undisturbed.