Dying Declaration must be subject to close scrutiny but can be relied upon without corroboration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court last week held that a dying declaration should be subjected to close scrutiny by a court considering the same but once the court is satisfied that it is a truthful version as to the circumstances in which the death occurred, the law does not expect that there should be corroboration before it can be relied upon [Kamal Khudal v. State of Assam]..A Division Bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala was of view that whether oral or written must pass a test of reliability before it can be relied upon as it is a statement made in the absence of the accused and since there is no opportunity to the accused even to put it through the fire of cross examination to test its veracity."A dying declaration, oral or written, before it could be relied upon, must pass a test of reliability as it is a statement made in the absence of the accused and there is no opportunity to the accused even to put it through the fire of cross examination to test is genuinity or veracity. The court has, therefore, to subject it to close scrutiny. But once the court is satisfied that it is a truthful version as to the circumstances in which the death resulted and the persons causing injuries, the law does not expect that there should be corroboration before it can be relied upon," the Court observed.However, if there are infirmities and the court does not find it safe to base any conclusion on it without some further evidence to support it, the question of corroboration arises, the Court further said.The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a decision of the Gauhati High Court which had upheld the conviction of the appellant, Kamal Khudal, under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860.Apart from the appellant, the High Court had also convicted one Munna Bhoi. However, no appeal against conviction was preferred by him before the Supreme Court..As per the facts of the case, on July 15, 2007, the appellant along with the co-accused Munna Bhoi came to the house of the deceased. The accused persons took the deceased along with them for the purpose of paddy plantation. When the deceased did not return to his house till late evening, the family members conducted a search for him.The dead body of the deceased was found with various injuries on the body including burn injuries. Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered for murder.During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the co-accused Munna Bhoi was running a liquor factory situated adjacent to his paddy field. The deceased after working for sometime in the paddy field accompanied the accused persons to the liquor factory. it is noted that something went wrong while the accused persons and the deceased were in the liquor factory and after sometime, the locals saw the deceased coming out of the factory with burn injuries on his body. One of the prosecution witnesses Hanu Khetrapal, who was present in the nearby agricultural field, enquired with the deceased as to what had happened, to which the deceased stated that the accused persons had made inflicted the burn injuries on him.The trial court convicted the accused and co-accused for murder and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with fine of ₹2,000. Aggrieved, the accused and the co-accused approached the High Court challenging the decision but the the High Court dismissed the same.Aggrieved, the appellant-accused moved the present appeal before the Supreme Court..Advocate Vivek Sharma, appearing for the appellant argued that there was no reliable evidence to prove the case against the accused and the entire conviction of the appellant was based on a oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased before the witness, Hanu Khetrapal. It was stated that such oral dying declaration does not inspire any confidence and is a weak piece of evidence.It was further submitted the entire conviction has based solely on circumstantial evidence, which should not be allowed..At the outset, the top court noted that the High Court was justified in accepting the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before the witness, Hanu Ksheterpal, as reliable and inspiring confidence.To the argument by the appellant that the oral dying declaration was uncorroborated, the Court held that once the Court is satisfied that the declaration is a truthful version as to the circumstances in which the death resulted and the persons causing injuries, the law does not expect that there should be corroboration before it can be relied upon."However, if there are infirmities and the court does not find it safe to base any conclusion on it without some further evidence to support it, the question of corroboration arises," the Court clarified.Reliance was placed by the Court on its decision in Heikrujam Chaoba Singh v. State of Manipur (1999), wherein it was held that:"An oral dying declaration no doubt can form the basis of conviction, though the Courts seek for corroboration as a rule of prudence. But before the said declaration can be acted upon, the Court must be satisfied about the truthfulness of the same and that the said declaration was made by the deceased while he was in a fit condition to make the statement."The Court was of the view that the whole idea of accepting a statement in the name of dying declaration is that a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth..It is believed that when a man is at the point of death and when every expectation of this world is gone, it hushes away every motive of lie.Supreme Court.Therefore, the Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant and has dismissed the appeal..[Read Judgment]