Case Note & Summary
The State appealed against the High Court's judgment acquitting the accused of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The dispute arose from the death of a woman by burning, with the prosecution alleging that her in-laws demanded money, assaulted her, and set her on fire. The trial court convicted the accused based on a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate/SDM on 22.12.2011, but the High Court acquitted them, disbelieving both dying declarations due to inconsistencies and a two-day gap between them. The core legal issues were whether the High Court erred in rejecting the magistrate's dying declaration and whether multiple dying declarations invalidate conviction. The State argued that the magistrate's dying declaration was credible and should be relied upon, citing precedents that such declarations stand on a higher footing and can sustain conviction without corroboration. The accused contended that the multiple declarations and the deceased's mental state supported acquittal. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the first statement to police under Section 161 CrPC was unreliable, while the magistrate's dying declaration, recorded by a disinterested official, was credible. The Court emphasized that multiple dying declarations do not automatically discredit each other and that a magistrate's declaration can be the sole basis for conviction. Consequently, the Court reversed the High Court's acquittal, restored the trial court's conviction, and upheld the life imprisonment sentence, favoring the prosecution.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Dying Declaration - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The Supreme Court considered the credibility of a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate/SDM on 22.12.2011, which implicated the accused in a murder by burning. The Court held that a dying declaration recorded by a competent magistrate, being a disinterested witness, carries high evidentiary value and can form the sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence, provided it inspires confidence. The High Court's acquittal was reversed as it erroneously disbelieved the magistrate's dying declaration without cogent reasons. (Paras 9-9.1.1) B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Multiple Dying Declarations - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - The case involved two dying declarations: one recorded by a police officer on 20.12.2011 and another by a Magistrate/SDM on 22.12.2011. The Supreme Court held that the existence of multiple dying declarations does not automatically render all unreliable; each must be assessed on its own merits. The Court found the first statement under Section 161 CrPC lacked credibility, while the magistrate's dying declaration was reliable, thus restoring the trial court's conviction. (Paras 9.1.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused by disbelieving the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM on 22.12.2011, and whether conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC can be sustained based on that dying declaration.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, and restored the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment.
Law Points
- Dying declaration recorded by a competent magistrate stands on a higher footing than a statement to police under Section 161 CrPC
- Multiple dying declarations do not automatically invalidate each other
- Conviction can be based solely on a credible dying declaration without corroborative evidence
- The court must assess the credibility of each dying declaration individually
