Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Supreme Court of India pronounced on the last day before winter break that the "weight and utility of a dying declaration depend upon the surrounding circumstances and the credibility which the court attaches to it, having regard to the evidence led before it. Therefore, whether it is essential to have medical certification before the statement is recorded, who records it, etc. are all fact-dependent, and no stereotypical approach can be adopted by courts."

Relying upon the judgment of Laxman Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2002(Supp 1) SCR 697 the court noted that the approach which may be adopted while considering the Dying Declaration, especially where the evidence includes multiple dying declarations. The Court referred the judgment wherein it is held:-

“In view of the above, the law on the issue of dying declaration can be summarised to the effect that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration and it has not been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for recording a conviction. In such an eventuality no corroboration is required. In case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness. In case there are circumstances wherein the declaration had been made, not voluntarily and even otherwise, it is not supported by the other evidence, the court has to scrutinise the facts of an individual case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance.”

The Court held that in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Laxman and Jagbir Singh V. State of NCT of Delhi (2019) 8 SCC 779 the court held that it is necessary to consider the evidentiary value of the dying declaration, which was relied on by the prosecution to convict the appellant.

Before coming to the conclusion, the bench noted that in the present case there was only one piece of evidence against the appellant and the High Court completely rejected the evidentiary value of the same.

The Bench Court set aside the conviction of the appellant and held that the only evidence against the appellant was discredited by the High Court, there is no other material to sustain his conviction. For these reasons, the Impugned judgment and the appellant's conviction and sentence are hereby set aside.

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2311 OF 2022
RAJARAM …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

Read the complete judgment on the following Link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/16271/16271_2022_15_1501_40642_Judgement_16-Dec-2022.pdf