The Supreme Court set aside a High Court acquittal, holding that a voluntary, truthful and reliable dying declaration alone can sustain a murder conviction, warning courts against rejecting credible evidence on hyper-technical or speculative grounds.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a decisive reaffirmation of the law relating to dying declarations, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the acquittal granted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court and restored the conviction and life sentence of a husband accused of burning his wife to death.
The Court held that “a voluntary, truthful and reliable dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction” and cautioned courts against discarding such evidence on speculative or hyper-technical grounds.
Facts of the Case
The prosecution (State of Himachal Pradesh) alleged that on 7 December 2009, the accused Chaman Lal poured kerosene on his wife Saro Devi and set her on fire at their residence in Village Rampur, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, following frequent marital discord.
The victim suffered approximately 70% burn injuries and was admitted to the District Hospital, Chamba. On 8 December 2009, her dying declaration was recorded by the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, after obtaining medical certification of her fitness.
In her statement, the deceased categorically stated:
her husband had set her on fire after insulting her by calling her a “Kanjri”.
Despite medical treatment at multiple hospitals, Saro Devi succumbed to her injuries on 15 January 2010.
Trial Court Conviction and High Court Acquittal
The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of doubt on the ground that the dying declaration appeared doubtful due to discrepancies regarding the timing and manner of its recording.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State of Himachal Pradesh approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was voluntary and reliable.
- Whether the High Court erred in discarding the dying declaration on minor inconsistencies.
- Scope of appellate interference with an order of acquittal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
Credibility of Dying Declaration
The Supreme Court firmly rejected the High Court’s reasoning and held:
“A dying declaration, if found to be voluntary, truthful and reliable, can by itself form the sole basis for conviction.”
The Court noted that:
- The declaration was recorded by a neutral public servant.
- Medical opinion regarding the fitness of the deceased was obtained.
- The deceased was conscious, oriented and capable of making a statement.
Rejecting the High Court’s approach, the Bench observed:
“Minor discrepancies highlighted by the High Court do not create any dent in the credibility of the dying declaration.”
Presence of Police Officers Not Fatal
Addressing the argument that police presence vitiated the declaration, the Court clarified:
“Recording of a dying declaration under the supervision of a Magistrate does not become invalid merely because police officers were present.”
The Court emphasized that no suggestion of tutoring, coercion or manipulation was made during the cross-examination of the Tehsildar.
Hostile and Defence Witnesses
The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court’s reliance on hostile and defence witnesses, observing:
“The High Court erred in placing undue reliance on hostile and partisan witnesses while discarding consistent and cogent prosecution evidence.”
The testimony suggesting self-immolation was found to be uncorroborated and unreliable.
Motive Not Essential Where Direct Evidence Exists
On the issue of motive, the Court held:
“Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible dying declaration, failure to conclusively establish motive is not fatal to the prosecution.”
The Court further noted that matrimonial discord and persistent humiliation were clearly evident from the record.
The Court relied on precedents like Sadhu Saran Singh, Rajesh Prasad, and Phoolchand Rathore to hold that:
- An acquittal can be reversed where findings are perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence.
- This was a fit case for interference to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held:
“The High Court fell into manifest error in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court.”
Accordingly:
- The High Court’s acquittal was set aside.
- The trial court’s conviction and life sentence were restored.
- The accused was directed to surrender forthwith.
Case Title:
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Chaman Lal
Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2018
READ JUDGMENT