The Supreme Court has highlighted the credibility of dying declarations, noting that individuals near death rarely lie, making their final words highly acceptable in legal contexts. This ruling reinstated a life sentence for a man convicted of murdering his wife in Maharashtra.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has emphasized the weight of dying declarations, stating that individuals on the verge of death rarely have any reason to lie. These final words hold “greater acceptability” in the eyes of the law. The judgment came from a Bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, who ordered a man to return to prison to complete a life sentence for the brutal murder of his wife in Maharashtra.
The case revolves around the murder of a police constable, who was burned to death by her husband and his brother in Ambajogai in 2002. The court records revealed the horrific details of the crime: the woman was gagged, tied up, and set on fire by her husband and brother-in-law because she refused to share her salary with her in-laws. Her husband was an Army serviceman.
In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court relied heavily on the multiple dying declarations made by the victim before she succumbed to her burn injuries. These declarations played a crucial role in ensuring justice was served.
“The credibility of a dying declaration is elevated due to its origins in extremis. When an individual is on the brink of death, the inclination to deceive is exceedingly rare,”
-Justice Bhuyan observed in the judgment.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Emphasizes Benefit of Doubt in Appellate Cases: Revisiting a 2007 Murder Conviction
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the life sentence reinforces the principle that the dying declarations are a critical tool in the judicial process. The court’s reliance on these declarations is rooted in the belief that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to fabricate their final words. This principle is not only a cornerstone of the legal system but also a reflection of the human condition and the search for truth in the face of mortality.
The victim’s struggle and the brutal manner of her death shocked the community and highlighted the severe issues of domestic violence and dowry harassment faced by many women in India. Her brave declarations, made in the face of death, ensured that her killers were brought to justice.
This case also brings to light the critical role of law enforcement and the judiciary in addressing and mitigating such heinous crimes. The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a reminder of the ongoing need to protect vulnerable individuals and to uphold justice, even when the victim is no longer able to speak for themselves.
By affirming the life sentence, the Supreme Court has not only provided a semblance of closure to the victim’s family but also sent a strong message about the seriousness with which it views crimes of this nature. The court’s acknowledgment of the victim’s dying declarations as a credible and decisive piece of evidence is a testament to the power of truth and justice.
the Supreme Court has elucidated the pivotal role of a dying declaration as a critical piece of evidence within the legal framework. This clarification came amidst deliberations over the intrinsic value and reliability of dying declarations in criminal law.
Justice Bhuyan, during the proceedings, highlighted the established legal precedents, stating-
“There exists no categorical legal dictum barring a dying declaration from constituting the sole grounds for conviction without corroboration.”
Dying declarations are statements made by individuals who believe their death is imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances that led to their impending death. The Supreme Court underscored the necessity for courts to approach these declarations with a high degree of diligence and scrutiny. This involves ensuring the authenticity and voluntary nature of the declarations, devoid of any external influence or manipulation.
Justice Bhuyan elaborated on the conditions under which a dying declaration can be accepted as reliable evidence.
“It is imperative to ascertain that the declaration is devoid of any influence from coaching, coercion, or fabrication; the individual making the declaration must be in a sound and lucid state of mind. However, upon the court’s determination of the declaration’s authenticity and voluntariness, conviction may be founded upon it even in the absence of corroborative evidence.”
-the apex court held.
In scenarios where multiple dying declarations exist, the Supreme Court mandates that each declaration must be evaluated on its individual merits.
“A declaration cannot be dismissed solely due to certain discrepancies in others.”
-as noted by Justice Bhuyan.
Further strengthening the judicial perspective on this matter, the court opined that a dying declaration documented by a competent magistrate inherently carries greater evidential strength compared to those reliant on oral testimony.
ALSO READ: SC: Eyewitness account can’t be merely discarded because of inconsistencies of medical evidence
The judgment stated that a declaration recorded in the proper manner by a magistrate-
“holds a significantly superior position compared to a dying declaration relying on oral testimony, which is susceptible to the flaws inherent in human memory and character.”
This distinction emphasizes the importance of the method and manner in which dying declarations are recorded, highlighting the role of judicial officers in preserving the integrity of this crucial piece of evidence.
