Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
"When there are divergent and multiple dying declarations, it is not the law that the court must invariably prefer the statement which is incriminatory and must reject the statement which does not implicate the accused. It is for the court to find out which dying victim's statement is true. The real point is to ascertain which contains the truth," a Bench of Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph observed.
This judgement was given by the Hon'ble court on the basis of an appeal which was filed by a CRPF Jawan who was convicted of his wife's murder and criminal intimidation in the year 2008. He was accused of pouring kerosene over his wife and setting her ablaze. His wife gave two dying declarations. The first one did not implicate him. In the second declaration, she pointed the finger at him. On the basis of the second declaration the Delhi High Court convicted him and dismissed his appeal for bail.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court and rejected his bail. In this case the Hon'ble Court reiterated the law that "any statement made by a person as to the cause of his death or to any circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death would be relevant". Also, when it is proved that the statement is made by the deceased person then it cannot be brushed aside. The question of multiple dying declaration will not arise when the statement is made by the deceased himself and the same has been proved in the court of law. The accused contended that the dying declaration could be the result of "imagination running wild". The Hon'ble Bench rejected this contention of the accused and ruled that in this case there is no material present before them to believe or to hold that the dying declaration made by the victim is a creation of her own imagination.
86540
103860
630
114
59824