Introduction
The Supreme Court of India ruled on October 27, 2024, in an important judgment regarding the use of oral dying declarations from close relatives as a piece of evidence in criminal cases. This judgment demanded cautious assessment whenever such declarations were relied upon to convict an accused. This article discusses the background of the case, the appeals process, the respondents involved, and the findings of the court.
This case is one where the accused was convicted on the dying declaration of a dead man given orally to his mother. The trial court initially accepted this testimony as good enough to convict the accused in a murder case. The High Court, on appeal, reversed the conviction and held that it was contradictory to the testimony of the mother and there was no corroboration.
The bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia went through the judgments delivered by the lower court. In the case of dying declarations, they pointed out, these can be quite telling evidence, but scrutiny should be sharp, more so when made to close relatives, who are expected to be biased.
Appeal Process
State of Madhya Pradesh had filed the appeal against acquittal of Ramjan Khan and others. The prosecution urged reinstatement of conviction based on an oral dying declaration received from the mother of the deceased (PW8), who had claimed that her son had identified assailants before he died. But such a claim did not surface in her statements recorded earlier under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which questions its authenticity.
Respondents
Amongst the respondents was Ramjan Khan, charged with murder. He had a team of advocates representing him in the case, arguing that a conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of one oral dying declaration of the prosecution. In their submission, they relied on some inconsistencies in the testimonies of some of the witnesses to establish that declarations of this nature should not stand as a basis for conviction without corroboration.
Bench Findings
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal by the State through its judgment. Oral Dying Declarations: Ravikumar, J expressed that oral dying declarations by close relatives are to be treated with circumspection in view of biasness. PW8’s version was not accepted as it was contradictory on earlier instances and was not corroborated from other sources.
Evidence Evaluation: The bench ruled that dying declarations should elicit full confidence in their correctness before being used as a basis for conviction. In this case, no evidence existed to confirm the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make such a declaration when his mother arrived at the scene.
Legal Precedents: Dying declarations being presumed true are still scrutinized upon their consistency and credibility, which was absent in PW8’s case. Hence, the corroboration made his ocular evidence not enough for the conviction of the accused.
Benefit of Doubt: Concluding that the ocular evidence given by PW8 were not reliable enough, he gave the benefit of doubt, hence acquitting the accused.
Conclusion While establishing careful scrutiny on oral dying declarations in criminal cases, this decision of the Supreme Court establishes the necessity to evaluate them strictly so as to serve justice with greater accuracy and fairness. Being capable of convincing the minds in their very nature, strict examination is needed so that no biased testimonies result in a conviction which then is upheld only on questionable evidence satisfying legal criteria
