Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from a murder case where the appellants, who are relatives of the deceased, were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The prosecution case was that on 10th October 1993, the deceased Mahadeo Sitaram Thore, in the presence of his mother Dhrupatabai and daughter Anuradha, was assaulted by the accused persons in his agricultural field due to a long-standing boundary dispute. The accused were armed with weapons including an axe and sticks, and inflicted severe injuries, resulting in the amputation of the deceased's left leg and multiple incised wounds. The daughter, then aged 11-12 years, ran to the police station 2-3 km away and informed the police. The police reached the spot, transported the deceased to a hospital at Pathri, and later to Parbhani Civil Hospital. At the hospital, a Awal Karkun (revenue official) recorded the dying declaration of the deceased after a doctor certified that he was conscious and fit to make the statement. The deceased succumbed to his injuries the same night due to hemorrhagic shock. The mother and daughter, who were initially cited as eye-witnesses, turned hostile during trial and did not support the prosecution. Consequently, the prosecution case hinged on the dying declaration and medical evidence. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life sentences. On appeal, the appellants contended that the dying declaration was unreliable and that the hostile witnesses weakened the prosecution case. They pointed out that one doctor had noted that the patient was in shock and might not have been in a position to speak. The High Court examined the evidence of the doctor (PW11) who certified the deceased's consciousness and the revenue official (PW9) who recorded the statement. The doctor testified that he was present throughout the recording and that the deceased answered questions coherently. The dying declaration narrated the assault and named the accused. The post-mortem findings confirmed the multiple injuries, including the amputated leg and head injury, which corroborated the manner of assault described in the dying declaration. The Court held that the dying declaration was credible, voluntary, and consistent with medical evidence, and it could thus form the sole basis for conviction. The Court further observed that merely because the eye-witnesses turned hostile, the dying declaration did not become inadmissible or unreliable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Dying Declaration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - The prosecution case primarily relied on the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by a revenue official after a doctor certified that the deceased was conscious and fit to make the statement, as the two eye-witnesses (mother and daughter) turned hostile. The Court examined the testimony of the doctor and the recording officer and found that the dying declaration was recorded in accordance with law, the declarant was conscious, and the contents were consistent with the medical evidence and post-mortem findings. Held, that a dying declaration, if truthful and voluntary, can form the sole basis for conviction even in the absence of direct eye-witness testimony. (Paras 6, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration of the deceased is reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction when the alleged eye-witnesses have turned hostile?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellants, holding that the dying declaration was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Law Points
- Dying declaration can be sole basis of conviction if found reliable and consistent with medical evidence
- certification of consciousness by a doctor is essential
- hostile witnesses do not automatically discredit prosecution case when there is other credible evidence
- statement recorded by a revenue official has evidentiary value.
