Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down that a dying declaration cannot be held to be invalid only on the ground that it was not certified by the doctor.  
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge Bench consisting of Justice S Abdul Nazeer, Justice MM Shantanagoudar and Justice NV Ramana  

Facts

• The incident in question occurred on 1st November 2001, involving Vimla Bai (deceased) and Poonam Bai (appellant), who was the niece of the deceased. 
• Around noon, Poonam Bai visited Vimla Bai’s house when she was alone, quarreled with her, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire using a matchstick. 
• Vimla Bai suffered severe burn injuries and later succumbed to them in the hospital. 
• The incident was reported the same day at 12:05 p.m. to Police Station Gurur by Lalita Sahu (P.W.2), the deceased’s daughter. 
• The trial court acquitted Poonam Bai based on the evaluation of evidence. 
• Dissatisfied with the acquittal, the State filed an appeal before the High Court, which later convicted Poonam Bai under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (murder). 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether the dying declaration in the facts of the present case should be relied on to convict the accused? 

Observation 

• In the present case evidence of Dr. JS Khalsa (P.W. 11) who conducted the postmortem examination provided that the deceased had sustained 100% burn injuries all over the body. 
• It was also deposed by the doctor that the deceased was in a state of shock. 
• The prosecution in this case relied more heavily on the declaration recorded by the Naib Tehsildar− cum−Executive Magistrate in the hospital as compared to the oral dying declaration. 
• With regards to the admissibility of dying declarations the Court laid down the following: 
  • Dying declaration can be the sole basis of convicting the accused. 
  • However, such a dying declaration should be trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable. 
  • In case the person recording the dying declaration is satisfied that the declarant is in a fit medical condition to make the statement and if there are no suspicious circumstances, the dying declaration may not be invalid solely on the ground that it was not certified by the doctor. 
  • Insistence for certification by the doctor is only a rule of prudence, to be applied based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 
  • The real test is as to whether the dying declaration is truthful and voluntary 
  • However, since the declarant will not be subjected to cross examination in order for the dying declaration to be the sole basis for conviction, it should be of such a nature that it inspires the full confidence of the court.  
• The Court in the facts of the case at hand rejected the dying declaration on the following grounds: 
  • The original copy of the dying declaration has not been produced before the Trial Court. 
  • The dying declaration produced is only the photocopy of the original. 
  • Also, the photocopy does not contain the signature of the witnesses. 
  • It was the case of the prosecution that the dying declaration was recorded in the hospital, but it is admitted in the cross examination that the hospital was closed on that day. 
  • No certification regarding the fitness of the victim to make the statement has been made. 
• Thus, it was concluded by the Court that the dying declaration has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 
• The Court thus, held that the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside  

Conclusion 

• Dying Declaration is a very important piece of evidence which is embodied in Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
• This judgment reiterates the principles for reliability of dying declaration.