Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), has laid down the principles which are to be followed in cases where there are multiple dying declarations.

What was the Background of Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) Case?

• In the present case, the appellant (Abhishek Sharma) was accused of murdering his colleague Mandeep Kaur (deceased) on the intervening night of 20^th and 21^st September, 2007.
• The deceased was set on fire and died due to multiple burn injuries and the appellant was booked for murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The deceased gave four dying declarations.
  • The first dying declaration was given to a police officer, who reached the spot of the crime and took the deceased to the Hospital.
  • The second dying declaration was given to the Doctor who examined the deceased and prepared a report.
  • The third dying declaration was given to Sub Inspector, based on which the First Information Report (FIR) was registered.
  • The fourth dying declaration was given to the mother of the deceased.
• In the Trial Court, all four dying declarations made by the deceased were found to be consistent, voluntarily given, and reflective of her sound mental condition at the time. As a result, the appellant was found guilty and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Delhi High Court, upon appeal, agreed with the Trial Court's findings, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of its lack of merit.
• Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the SC.
• While allowing the appeal, the SC acquitted the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that considering the aforementioned factors, placing the gauntlet of guilt upon the appellant based on dying declarations when no other material particulars, apart from his name, could be elicited therefrom would be unjustified.
  • Furthermore, when considering other circumstances that may or may not point to the guilt of the appellant, as discussed above, the court find gaps unexplained in the prosecution case, which cast sufficient doubt to leave the case short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.
• The court laid down the following principles which are to be considered in cases of multiple dying declarations:
  1. The primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in a fit state of mind.
  2. All dying declarations should be consistent. In other words, inconsistencies between such statements should be material for its credibility to be shaken.
  3. When inconsistencies are found between various dying declarations, other evidence available on record may be considered for the purposes of corroboration of the contents of dying declarations.
  4. The statement treated as a dying declaration must be interpreted in light of surrounding facts and circumstances.
  5. Each declaration must be scrutinized on its own merits. The court has to examine upon which of the statement's reliance can be placed in order for the case to proceed further.
  6. When there are inconsistencies, the statement that has been recorded by a Magistrate or like higher officer can be relied on, subject to the indispensable qualities of truthfulness and being free of suspicion.
  7. In the presence of inconsistencies, the medical fitness of the person making such declaration, at the relevant time, assumes importance along with other factors such as the possibility of tutoring by relatives, etc.

What is Dying Declaration?

• Meaning:
  • Dying declaration is derived from the word ‘leterm motem’ which means words said before death.
  • A dying declaration is a statement made by a dying person as to the cause of his death or as to any circumstances of the transaction that resulted in his death.
  • The dying declaration of the deceased can be recorded by anyone as per law. However, a dying declaration recorded by a Judicial or Executive Magistrate adds an additional strength to the prosecution case.
• Statutory Provision:
  • Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the concept of dying declaration.
  • Section 32(1) states that when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under the expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.
  • The statement made by the deceased person will be treated as evidence and admissible in a Court of law.
• Multiple Dying Declarations:
  • The following rules have to be considered in cases of multiple dying declarations:
    • There should be regularity in all the dying declarations.
    • If the dying declarations are inconsistent, then the court will examine the facts of the case or witnesses.
• Related Case Laws:
  • In the Kamla v. State of Punjab (1993) case, the SC held that dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it is free from infirmities and satisfies various tests.
  • In the Amol Singh v. State of MP (2008) case, the SC held that inconsistencies between multiple dying declarations must be assessed in the context of surrounding facts and circumstances.
  • In the Lakhan v. State of MP (2010) case, the SC observed that if in a 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 the Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013) case, the SC held that when there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated and assessed independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of certain variations in the other.