Case Note & Summary
This Full Bench judgment arises from Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2013 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The appellant, Ganpat Bakaramji Lad, was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, primarily on the basis of a dying declaration recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate. During the hearing of his appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court noticed a conflict between two earlier decisions of coordinate Benches on the legal requirement that a dying declaration must be read over to the declarant and admitted by him to be correctly recorded. The earlier decisions in Shivaji Patdukhe v. State of Maharashtra (2004) and Abdul Riyaz Abdul Bashir v. State of Maharashtra (2012) had taken the view that in the absence of such endorsement, the dying declaration cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction. In contrast, another Division Bench in the very same case of Ganpat Bakaramji Lad (2015) expressed disagreement, holding that the mere fact that the declaration was not read over and admitted does not automatically invalidate it, and that such a rigid rule would be unjust if the declaration is otherwise proved and reliable. Accordingly, the Division Bench framed the following question for reference to a larger bench: 'Whether a Dying Declaration can be rejected merely because the same is not read over to the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to have been correctly recorded?' The matter was placed before this Full Bench comprising Justices R.K. Deshpande, S.B. Shukre, and M.G. Giratkar. After hearing detailed arguments from counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Full Bench undertook a comprehensive review of the law relating to dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court recapitulated the fundamental principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22) and Laxman v. State of Maharashtra ((2002) 6 SCC 710), emphasizing that a dying declaration enjoys a special sanctity because it is made at a time when the declarant is facing imminent death and all motives to speak falsehood are silenced. The apex court has held that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence, can form the sole basis of conviction without corroboration, and the only prerequisite is that the court must be satisfied that the declarant was in a fit mental condition to make the statement. The requirement of a medical certificate regarding fitness is considered a rule of caution rather than a mandatory legal requirement. The Full Bench then examined the conflicting decisions of its own Court and the Supreme Court judgments cited by both sides, including Shaikh Bakshu v. State of Maharashtra ((2007) 11 SCC 269) and Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan ((2009) 12 SCC 498). The judgment also discussed the view in Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of A.P. ((1999) 7 SCC 695) regarding the necessity of a certificate of fitness. The Full Bench ultimately provided a definitive answer to the reference question, settling the law on the issue. The provided excerpt of the judgment ends before the operative portion, hence the exact ruling and the final outcome of the appeal are not contained herein. However, from the reasoning, it is clear that the Court sought to clarify that while reading over and obtaining admission is a desirable practice to ensure accuracy, the absence of such endorsement does not ipso facto render the dying declaration inadmissible or unreliable; rather, its evidentiary worth must be assessed on the totality of circumstances. The judgment serves to resolve the divergence of opinion among the Benches of the Bombay High Court and provides guidance on the admissibility and evaluation of dying declarations in criminal trials.
Headnote
A) Criminal Evidence - Dying Declaration - Requirement of Endorsement of Reading Over - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The reference to Full Bench concerned whether a dying declaration can be rejected solely because its contents were not read over to the declarant and the declarant did not admit their correctness - The Court examined conflicting decisions: Shivaji Patdukhe (2004) and Abdul Riyaz (2012) held such endorsement mandatory, while Ganpat Lad (2015) took a contrary view - The Full Bench was constituted to resolve the conflict and deliver an authoritative ruling on the legal position (Paras 1-5). B) Criminal Evidence - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Value and Principles - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) / Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - The Supreme Court in Khushal Rao (AIR 1958 SC 22) and Laxman ((2002) 6 SCC 710) laid down that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as other evidence, can be sole basis of conviction, and sanctity attaches due to the solemn moment of death - The court need only satisfy itself about the declarant's fit mental state, which can be proved by witnesses or circumstances, and medical certification is a rule of caution, not a legal requirement - The requirement of reading over and explaining the statement to the declarant and obtaining admission is part of the recording process to ensure accuracy, but its absence may not automatically vitiate the declaration if otherwise trustworthy (Paras 10-12). C) Criminal Evidence - Dying Declaration - Conflicting Views on Mandatory Endorsement - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The Division Bench in Shivaji Patdukhe rejected a dying declaration because it was not read over and there was no endorsement of admission, holding that such declaration cannot sustain conviction - Another Division Bench in Ganpat Lad disagreed, stating that the lack of endorsement does not by itself render the declaration unreliable as long as it is otherwise proved - The Full Bench was tasked with settling this conflict and clarifying whether the endorsement is a mandatory legal requirement or merely a rule of prudence (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Dying Declaration can be rejected merely because the same is not read over to the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to have been correctly recorded?
Law Points
- Dying declaration under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- sanctity of dying declaration
- dying declaration stands on same footing as other evidence
- no absolute rule that dying declaration cannot form sole basis of conviction
- requirement of fit mental state
- reading over and endorsement is a rule of caution not mandatory
- conflict between Division Bench decisions on mandatory nature of endorsement
- admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declaration
