The Supreme Court of India
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court said if a dying declaration of the deceased are "inconsistent, surrounded by doubt", courts then must look for corroborative evidence to find out which one is to be believed. In such cases, courts are required to act cautiously, however, this will depend upon the facts of the matter, it said.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah acquitted Satish of the offence of killing his wife on September 12, 2008 in Tuticorin, giving him benefit of doubt, and finding that her dying declaration was "suspicious".
"In cases where the dying declaration is suspicious, it is not safe to convict an accused in the absence of corroborative evidence. In a case like the present one, where the deceased has been changing her stance and has completely turned around her statements, such a dying declaration cannot become the sole basis for the conviction in the absence of any other corroborative evidence," the bench said.
The trial court relied mainly upon the dying declaration of the deceased made before the judicial magistrate to convict the appellant.
Examining his appeal, the court noted that the deceased had given two statements which are totally different from her subsequent statements including the statement made before the judicial magistrate on September 18, 2008.
The bench said, in the first statement made to the doctor on the day of the incident itself, she said the incident occurred while she was cooking. In the second statement, made to the police constable on the same day, the deceased said the same thing i.e. she caught fire by accident while cooking in the kitchen.
"Now, the variances in deceased’s statements cast serious doubts on the veracity of her subsequent statement of September 18, 2008 made before the judicial magistrate where she had blamed the appellant for the incident," the bench said.
In its judgment on March 4, 2025, the court said it is very difficult to believe this version of the deceased because no other evidence corroborates the deceased’s statement that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and then set her on fire.
"A dying declaration is an important piece of evidence and a conviction can be made by relying solely on a dying declaration alone as it holds immense importance in criminal law. However, such reliance should be placed after ascertaining the quality of the dying declaration and considering the entire facts of a given case," the bench said.
The court noted that the doctor had categorically stated in his evidence that there was no smell of kerosene in the body of the deceased when she was brought to the hospital.
Allowing the appeal, the bench said, "Without appreciating the facts of the case in their proper perspective, the high court mechanically upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellant."