The Supreme Court ruled that minor discrepancies in witness statements cannot negate a valid dying declaration. Upholding a murder conviction, the Court emphasized that a dying declaration recorded by an independent witness remains strong evidence in criminal trials.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that minor inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence do not undermine a valid dying declaration, particularly when it is corroborated by independent evidence. Upholding the conviction of a woman in a murder case from Gujarat, the Court ruled that the dying declaration given before an independent witness, in this case, a doctor, could not be ignored merely due to slight discrepancies in testimony.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic incident in which Leelaben, the deceased, was set ablaze while she and her son were asleep in their hut. The prosecution alleged that the appellant/accused, Leelaben’s aunt-in-law, along with a co-accused, conspired to kill her and her son. According to the prosecution, the accused poured kerosene on Leelaben and set her on fire. Leelaben later succumbed to her injuries, while her son sustained 10–12% burn injuries.
A complaint was lodged by PW-1, Leelaben’s sister, and charges were filed under Sections 302, 307, 436, 34, and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Trial Court vs. High Court
The Trial Court had initially acquitted both the accused, citing inconsistencies in three separate dying declarations made by the deceased. However, upon appeal, the Gujarat High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, ruling that the first dying declaration given before an independent witness (the attending doctor) was reliable and corroborated by physical and medical evidence.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the High Court’s findings. The Bench noted that the first dying declaration was made before an independent witness, the doctor (PW-3), and was supported by documentary and forensic evidence.
“Merely because there are minor discrepancies in the version given by the prosecution witness with regard to the dying declaration and the manner of occurrence of the incident, the first dying declaration given by the deceased before the independent witness cannot be ignored,”
the Bench observed.
The Court also referred to the precedent set in Nallam Veera Stayanandam & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (2004) 10 SCC 769, emphasizing that a consistent and credible dying declaration is sufficient to base a conviction upon, even in the absence of other corroborative evidence.
The Supreme Court noted several crucial pieces of corroborative evidence:
- Medical certificate showing the deceased had 100% kerosene-smelling burns.
- Panchnama confirming the recovery of an empty container with a kerosene smell from the scene.
- Soil samples from the hut also smelled of kerosene.
- The doctor’s testimony confirmed that the deceased was conscious and able to communicate clearly at the time of making her declaration.
The Bench further noted that the deceased’s four-year-old son sustained burn injuries on his legs, consistent with the incident described in the dying declaration.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the Gujarat High Court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC (Murder) and the sentence of life imprisonment.
This judgment reinforces a critical legal principle that a dying declaration remains a vital piece of evidence in criminal trials, even if minor discrepancies arise in subsequent testimonies, provided it is consistent, voluntary, and corroborated by material evidence.
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR S. C. Birla, Advocate Subrat Birla
Respondent: AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate Rishi Yadav
Case Title:
Jemaben v. The State of Gujarat
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1934 OF 2017
READ JUDGMENT