Apex court says a person can't be convicted only the basis of a dying declaration

In a recent ruling, the apex court emphasized that a person cannot be found guilty solely based on a dying declaration if there exists uncertainty about its accuracy and acquitted an individual who had previously been convicted and sentenced to death.

The conviction was founded upon statements made by the deceased prior to their demise, where the deceased had accused the person of burning his own son and two brothers alive.

A panel of Judges, namely B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, acknowledged that dying declarations carry significant weight due to being articulated by an individual during their final moments, when motives for falsehood are subdued.

Such declarations are often driven by an urge to reveal the truth, influenced by the gravest considerations.

Nonetheless, the Judges cautioned against absolute reliance on this evidence.

The Judges pointed out, “Relying solely on a dying declaration for a conviction is unsafe in cases like the present one, where doubts about the accuracy of the declaration arise. In such situations, the Court should seek corroborative evidence, treating the dying declaration as only one element of proof. The available evidence and materials must be meticulously assessed in each instance to reach an appropriate verdict. The warning comes from the fact that even though the convicted appellant has been implicated as the arsonist in the two dying declarations, the circumstances surrounding the case cast doubt on the veracity of these statements.”

Upon thorough evaluation of all evidence, including witness statements and dying declarations, the Judges identified inconsistencies. They were compelled to choose between believing the dying declarations and the oral testimonies of eyewitnesses.

Ultimately, the Court accepted the argument presented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who represented the convicted individual. He contended that the dying declarations lacked reliability and could not be deemed credible.

The Court emphasized, “The prosecution bears the responsibility of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Any uncertainty should favor the accused. While a dying declaration is a substantial piece of evidence, it can only be relied upon if it is established that the declaration was voluntary, truthful and that the victim was in a sound state of mind. It is inadequate for the Court to assert the reliability of the dying declaration merely because the accused is named as the perpetrator.”