Summary
The High Court rejected two differing accounts of fatal burns and acquitted the accused. The Court restored the murder convictions, finding the later dying declaration recorded by the SDM reliable and consistent with medical evidence. The earlier police statement did not require rejection of a subsequent declaration, and corroboration was not an inflexible prerequisite to relying on a true, voluntary declaration. Both accused received life imprisonment and Rs.10,000 fine each, with immediate surrender directed.
Issues
- Whether differing statements required rejection of the SDM-recorded dying declaration.
- Whether a reliable dying declaration could sustain conviction without mandatory corroboration.
Provisions considered
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court assessed the dying declaration’s truthfulness, voluntariness, capacity of the maker and supporting circumstances rather than rejecting it merely because another account existed. (¶ 9-11)
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The trial court’s murder convictions and life sentences for both accused were restored on the accepted evidence. (¶ 11-12)
Held
- The earlier account was a police statement under Section 161 CrPC. Its existence did not make recording a later dying declaration by the SDM improper. Multiple declarations require assessment of all circumstances and evidence; inconsistency does not automatically compel rejection of every declaration. (¶ 9-9.1.2)
- The SDM’s independence and evidence, the physician’s certification of consciousness and the medical pattern of burns supported the later declaration. The earlier self-burning version did not inspire confidence on the facts, including the unexplained means of accessing the allegedly locked room. (¶¶ 10, 10.2)
- A true and voluntary dying declaration can alone sustain conviction. Corroboration is not a universal rule of law or prudence, though reliability must be carefully tested against the maker’s capacity, circumstances and other evidence. (¶ 10.1-10.2)
- The High Court’s acquittal was set aside and the trial court convictions under Sections 302/34 restored. Both accused were sentenced to life imprisonment and Rs.10,000 fine each, and directed to surrender forthwith before the relevant court or jail authority. (¶ 11-12)
Result
State’s appeal allowed. Both accused convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC; life imprisonment and Rs.10,000 fine each restored. Surrender directed forthwith.