HomeCase AnalysisDissecting the Dying Declaration: A Critical Examination of Rajendra v. State of...

Dissecting the Dying Declaration: A Critical Examination of Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra [Case Analysis]

Editor’s Note:

Dying declaration is an admissible evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.[1] The legal maxim ‘nemomoriturus prae-sumitur mentire’ holds that no person will die with a lie on his lips. Usually invoked in as an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence as a strong evidence. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 talks about Dying Declaration and it is based on the abovementioned principle. This is the reason why courts have held that an accused may be convicted solely on the basis of a Dying Declaration. Actually, corroboration is unnecessary since it is a rule of prudence rather than an evidence rule. The same is admissible as evidence, even though it is not made on oath and cannot be cross-examined. Admissibility of a dying declaration as evidence has its basis on necessity and past religious beliefs. The necessity is that in cases where the victim is the solitary eyewitness to the crime, exclusion of his narration may frustrate the ends of justice.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra vs State of Maharashtra[2] observed that once a dying declaration is found to be authentic, inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration.

The law relating to dying declaration is now well settled. Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring. Once such a conclusion is reached, a great deal of sanctity is attached to a dying declaration and as said earlier, it can form the sole basis for conviction.”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecution case in brief is that wife of the appellant, Rekha was a police constable and lived in the police colony at Ambajogai. Her husband i.e. the appellant was serving in the army. He had come home on leave.

On 22.07.2002, at about 08:30 PM, Rekha had sustained burn injuries in the quarter where she was residing. According to the prosecution, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband Rajendra and brother-in-law Suresh. She was also subjected to sustained cruelty at the hands of her other in-laws including father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. On the fateful day, Rekha was beaten by her husband Rajendra and brother-in-law Suresh. They tied her hands with a gamcha and her feet by a towel. Then the husband gagged her face. Brother-in-law got a match box and a bottle of kerosene. Husband poured the kerosene on her person and lit the matchstick. In the process, she got completely burnt. She was taken to the hospital by the neighbours where her dying declaration was recorded by PW-6 being Ex. 59 on the basis of which Ambajogai Police Station registered Crime No. 182/2002 under Sections 307,[3] 498A,[4] 342,[5] 323[6] and 504[7] read with Section 34 IPC.[8]

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

After examining the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and various judicial pronouncements, the Apex Court laid down the following principles relating to dying declaration:

(i) it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated;

(ii) each case must be determined on its own facts, keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made;

(iii) it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence;

(iv) a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence. It has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing weighing of evidence;

(v) a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character;

(vi) in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the court has to keep in view various circumstances including the condition of the person concerned to make such a statement; that it has been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties.

The court in the present case observed that there is no reason for us to doubt the correctness of the dying declaration of the deceased which has been proved in evidence. Attending doctor has certified that the deceased was capable of narrating her statement.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. That appellant is guilty of committing the offence and that the guilt has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.


[1] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 34, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[2] Rajendra v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of 2011.

[3] Indian Penal Code , 1860, § 307, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[4] Indian Penal Code , 1860, § 498A, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[5] Indian Penal Code , 1860, § 342, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[6] Indian Penal Code , 1860, § 323, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[7] Indian Penal Code , 1860, § 504, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).

[8] Ibid.


Rajendra S:o Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra Judgment pdf

Law Wire Team
Law Wire Teamhttps://lawwire.in/
Law Wire Team attempts to delve into pertinent (and sometimes not immediately pertinent) questions regarding socio-politics, Law and their interesting matrix.
RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular