Dying Declaration Cannot Be Ignored, Says Apex Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the Gujarat High Court’s order awarding life imprisonment in a 2004 murder case, ruling that a dying declaration recorded by a medical professional and supported by the postmortem report cannot be disregarded “merely because there are minor discrepancies” in witness accounts regarding the declaration.
Appeal Against Conviction Rejected
A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court decision, which had overturned the trial court’s acquittal of the accused. The High Court had convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of a woman.
Details of the Crime
The case involved the killing of a woman who, along with her son, was attacked while sleeping in their hut. According to witness testimony, the appellant—who was a relative of the victim—entered into a conspiracy to kill them and poured kerosene on the woman before setting her on fire. She sustained severe burns and was taken to Civil Hospital, Palanpur, where she died on 04 December 2004. Her son also suffered burn injuries of 10–12%.
Trial Court Acquittal Challenged by State
Following the incident, police recorded witness statements, collected evidence, and filed charges under Sections 302, 307, 436, 34, 120B of the IPC, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. However, the trial court acquitted both accused, citing inconsistencies in the three dying declarations provided by the victim, Leelaben.
High Court Conviction and Sentence
The State of Gujarat appealed the acquittal. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order and convicted the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000. In case of default, the appellant would undergo an additional one month of simple imprisonment.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the dying declarations, which contained significant discrepancies. However, the State countered that multiple dying declarations must be evaluated individually, and one cannot be discarded based solely on differences with another. The State further argued that the postmortem findings and the extent of the burn injuries indicated the death was not accidental.
Court’s Observations on Medical Evidence
The bench noted that the documentary evidence—including the medical certificate—was duly supported by the doctor’s testimony. The doctor confirmed that the deceased was conscious and capable of speaking at the time of giving the dying declaration. The certificate also stated that her entire body had kerosene-smelling burns covering nearly 100%.
First Dying Declaration Considered Reliable
The Supreme Court held that minor inconsistencies in witness statements cannot overshadow the first dying declaration, which was recorded by an independent witness and corroborated by documentary evidence. The Court concluded that the High Court’s reliance on the initial declaration was justified and affirmed the conviction and life sentence.
