28 October 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Oral Dying Declaration Made to Close Relatives Requires Cautious Assessment Before Being Used To Convict Accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that when the conviction was based on the deceased’s oral dying declaration to a close relative, the courts must exercise due caution in believing the testimony of the close relative to convict the accused.

The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia heard a case where the prosecution tried to prove the guilt of the accused based on the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to her mother. The trial court convicted the accused in a murder case based on the deceased’s mother’s testimony deposing that her son (deceased) had made an oral dying declaration pointing out the names of the accused.

However, the conviction was set aside by the High Court after noting a material discrepancy in the deceased mother’s version because the mother, who was the informant in the case, had not averred anything in section 161 CrPC statements about dying declaration made to her by her son. However, at the stage of the trial, she testified before the court about an oral dying declaration being made by the deceased to her.

Affirming the High Court’s finding the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar observed that.

“Through the evidence, the mother of the deceased, who is also the informant, the prosecution has attempted to establish the existence of an oral dying declaration. It is to be noted that dying declaration itself is not a strong piece of evidence and therefore, when it is verbal and that too, allegedly made to a close relative (in this case allegedly to the mother), evidence of mother about the oral dying declaration was to be treated with care and caution.”

The Court said that even though the FIR is not meant to be an encyclopedia containing a chronicle of all intricate and minute details, it could be used to corroborate its maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict its maker, viz., the informant, under Section 145 of the Evidence Act to establish whether he is a trustworthy witness or not.

“The undisputed and indisputable position obtained from the evidence on record is that the defence had brought out that neither in Ext. P12 FIR nor in Ext. D3 statement of PW8 (deceased mother) recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., PW8 stated about the oral dying declaration made to her by the deceased. That apart, the prosecution had failed to establish that when PW8 reached the place of occurrence the deceased was in a fit state of mind to speak or talk relevantly. Except the statement of PW8 in the Court there is no scrap of evidence in that regard in the case on hand. There can be no doubt that oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. In the contextual situation revealed as above, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was perfectly justified in considering the oral testimony of PW8 and taking serious note of the serious omission brought out from her, on being confronted with Ext. P12 FIR and Ext. D3, which is her previous statement made to police, that she had not stated anything about such an oral dying declaration made by her deceased son”, the court said.

Thus, finding the ocular (hearsay) evidence of the deceased mother (PW 8) unreliable and not trustworthy, the court gave benefit of doubt to the accused.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State against the respondent's acquittal was dismissed.

Case- The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjan Khan & Ors.

2. Section 106 Evidence Act | Accused Has Duty to Offer Explanations When Offence was Committed Within Privacy Of Their House: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that when the offence was committed in the presence of the accused in the privacy of their house, than their failure to offer explanations can be treated as an adverse circumstance against them as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The bench Comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the decision of the High Court Overturning their acquittal in a murder case. It was alleged that the appellant accused were present in the house when the deceased died. However, the accused in their section 313 CrPC defence statement tried to take a plea of alibi and offered an explanation that they went to a particular place to attend some function.

The High Court overturned the acquittal after finding that the accused statements recorded under section 313 CrPC do not impose confidence as they failed to establish an alibi at the time of the incident.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that when the entire prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, then the failure of the accused to justify their claim under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, despite having special knowledge about the incident, would create an additional chain of events strengthening the prosecution's case.

“The presence of the Appellants at the time and place of incident is demonstrable from their conduct before and after the incident. In their defence under section 313 CrPC, the Appellants have stated that all 3 of them had gone to Keela Earal to attend a function in the Tractor Company. They returned home only at 6 P.M. and found the deceased in an unconscious stage and they took her to the hospital. Admittedly, the Appellants had taken the deceased to the local hospital; however, none of the Appellants have been able to establish an alibi at the time of the incident. The silence of the Appellants in informing P.W.-1 or the family of the deceased of her death, also speaks volume of their conduct. Undisputedly, the Appellants and the Deceased resided together since the marriage of the Deceased to Accused No.2, which substantiates their presence at the time of occurrence of the incident; and consequently the invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be faulted”, the court said.

Reference was drawn to the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) to hold that the accused owes a duty to explain the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased when the offence was committed in a privacy of the house. The Court said that if the accused remains quiet or offers a false explanation, then such a response would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

“In terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Appellants have not discharged their burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not inflicted by them”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was upheld.

Case- UMA & Anr. vs. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police