Justices Sujoy Paul and Prakash Chandra Gupta, who make up the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on December 20, ruled that a person can be found guilty of murder based on an authentic dying declaration of the deceased, even if the prosecution is unable to prove the accused's motive or prior animosity. The bence observed-

So far existence of 'enmity' and 'motive' is concerned, it is trite that in every case of direct evidence it is not necessary to establish the motive or enmity. If the crime is heinous and otherwise attracts necessary ingredients for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC, merely because motive and enmity is not established, appellant will not get any brownie points. In this case kerosene oil was poured on Gajadhar when he was sleeping. Then he was set on fire. Dying declaration is direct evidence to establish the same. This evidence which is worthy of credence is sufficient and question of motive is insignificant.

According to the prosecution's version of events, the appellants broke into the deceased's home, doused him in kerosene, and set him ablaze. No other witnesses to the incident were present. After being cleared by a doctor, the deceased was hurried to the hospital where he made his dying declaration to the magistrate. He later passed away from his wounds. The Appellants were charged with an offence covered by Section 302/34 of the IPC and later found guilty of it. They preferred to appeal their conviction before the Court out of resentment.

The court held that the authenticity of the deathbed declaration could not be questioned in light of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The Court further stated that if the deathbed declaration is proven to be accurate and voluntary, it might be accepted even without any additional evidence.

The Court laid emphasis that dying declaration must be true and voluntary and in that event it can be accepted without corroboration. As per the findings given above, no doubt was created on dying declaration during the course of hearing by learned counsel for appellant. After scrutiny of Ex.P-5, we find no reason to hold that dying declaration was untrue or involuntary. We have carefully examined and scrutinized dying declaration and unable to hold that it was outcome of any tutoring, prompting or imagination. It was proved beyond doubt that Gajadhar was in a fit state to make the declaration. Accordingly, in our opinion, the necessary ingredients for accepting a dying declaration are available in the instant case, and no fault can be found in the judgment of Court below where written dying declaration and oral dying declarations were accepted by Court below.

The court further stated that given the veracity of the deathbed declaration, they cannot be granted the benefit for the same. With the aforementioned considerations, the Court decided that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the appellants were properly convicted of the crime. The appeal was therefore denied.

Case Title: DEEN DAYAL AND ANR. VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1086 of 2012
link: https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2012/CRA/1086/CRA_1086_2012_FinalOrder_20-Dec-2022.pdf