Summary
Affirming the High Court's acquittal of a son and daughter-in-law accused of burning his parents to death in their thatched house, the Court restated the principles on dying declarations and found none of the written or oral declarations credible. The prosecution rested on motive and interested witnesses; independent witnesses were not examined, the cause of the fire was never investigated, and the incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
Issues
- What principles govern reliance on dying declarations, including multiple, oral and medically uncertified ones.
- Whether the written dying declarations (the first information statement recorded by the police and the statement recorded by the Block Development Officer) and the oral dying declarations deposed to by witnesses were credible.
- Whether the evidence on motive, the partially burnt complaints and the medical evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, so as to reverse the High Court's acquittal.
- What was the effect of the trial court's failure to put the incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872A dying declaration about the cause of death is relevant as an exception to the hearsay rule; the Court laid down the conditions for relying on such statements and found that none of the declarations here inspired confidence. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 18, 22)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Only four general questions were put to the accused, and none of the incriminating circumstances (motive, prior complaints, dying declarations, medical evidence) was put. The Court held that putting every such circumstance is a duty shared by the Court and the prosecutor, but declined to remand because the evidence fell short in any event. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31)
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Noted in assessing witnesses: one witness denied a dying declaration contrary to his Section 161 statement, and the deceased's elder son's account of a hospital declaration had not been recorded under Section 161. (¶ 20)
Held
- Drawing on Laxman v. State of Maharashtra and later decisions, a dying declaration can found a conviction without corroboration if the Court is satisfied it is true, voluntary and free from tutoring, prompting or imagination. It may be oral or written, single or multiple, brief or detailed, and made to a magistrate, doctor, police officer, relative or third party. Medical certification of fitness is not indispensable if the evidence shows a fit state of mind. (¶¶ 7, 13)
- Even a slight suspicion calls for corroboration. Medical certification aids satisfaction; a question-and-answer form is preferable where injuries are grave; a declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate carries added credence; recording should, where possible, be in the presence of a doctor and not before numerous bystanders; and veracity must emerge from the attendant circumstances. (¶¶ 14, 31)
- The first information statement, recorded hours after the police had visited the scene and only then registered, containing a long narrative of family disputes improbable from a gravely burnt woman, taken amid gathered villagers and relatives without medical certification, did not inspire confidence. The declaration recorded by the Block Development Officer suffered from similar defects and a conflict over who wrote it. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Oral dying declarations are not to be discarded for mere variations in wording, but here they came from interested witnesses, the woman whose shouts first raised the alarm and others who took the injured to hospital were not examined, and the declarations were improbable immediately after grievous burns. Non-examination of that first witness was a serious lacuna. (¶¶ 21, 22, 28)
- The motive was undermined by the deceased's elder son conceding his willingness to give the accused his 50% share; the pathologist's opinion that the deceased was fit to make a statement, based only on the post-mortem report, carried no weight; and the partially burnt complaints produced by a witness, never seized or handed to the investigating officer, could not be relied upon. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- The investigation was grossly deficient: no scene mahazar, no forensic examination of the cause of fire despite the defence of a gas-cylinder burst, no independent witnesses, no proof of the accused's presence near the scene, and delay in registering the FIR. The circumstances showed a conscious effort to implicate the accused rather than a complete chain pointing only to guilt. (¶¶ 24, 26, 27, 28, 31)
- Failure to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC can by itself defeat a prosecution. Remand for fresh questioning was not warranted, however, because the evidence fell well short of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which requires that guilt 'must be' true and not merely 'may be' true. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31)
Result
Appeal by the elder son of the deceased dismissed; the High Court's acquittal of the accused affirmed.