Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court’s three judged Bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, MM Shantanagouder and S Abdul Nazeer noted that reliable dying declarations can be made the sole basis for conviction. Further, if the dying declaration in question is otherwise proved to be reliable, there is no need to insist on certification of the same by a doctor. The Bench observed that the certification of dying declarations by doctors is only a rule of prudence, which is not mandatory if the declaration in question is otherwise reliable.
The bench noted that a dying declaration should be trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable. In case the person recording the dying declaration is satisfied that the declaring 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 appellant before the Court had been accused of dousing her aunt with kerosene and burning her to death in 2001. The case of the prosecution primarily rested on a dying declaration purported to have been made by the victim on the same day, in the presence of family members and a Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate. The Tehsildar had been called to the hospital to record the victim’s dying declaration on a request made by the police. The statement was recorded on a Sunday when there were no doctors available to certify the dying declaration, it was submitted. The dying declaration so recorded accused the appellant-niece of having committed the murder.
The Supreme Court Bench concurred with the trial court’s acquittal, noting that “He has also admitted in his cross examination that he did not put any question to the victim to find out whether she was in a position to make a statement or not. He also did not try to verify whether the victim had the power to recollect the incident in question. Hence, it is clear that P.W. 1 did not satisfy himself about the fitness of the victim to make a statement. No verification or certification of the doctor regarding the fitness of the victim to make a statement can be found on the dying declaration either.” Therefore, the Bench set aside the High Court judgment and ordered the release of the appellant.
86540
103860
630
114
59824