Date:23/05/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/05/23/stories/2008052360091400.htm

National

Court: not plurality, but reliability of dying declarations adds weight

J. Venkatesan

Statement must be consistent throughout, says Bench

Court has to examine nature of inconsistencies
Discrepancies hit credibility of evidence

New Delhi: If there is more than one dying declaration and the extent of variance is insignificant, such a statement declaration can still be relied upon to convict the accused, the Supreme Court has held.

“If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in a fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout,” said a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam.

However, “if the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there is more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. If some inconsistencies are noticed between one declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Pasayat said: “It is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. Minor variance in the declarations has no relevance. While scrutinising the contents of declarations the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances.”

In the instant case, Saraswati Bai in a dying declaration held Amol Singh and another person responsible for her death by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze. However, her second dying declaration was found to be at variance with the first one. The trial court found the accused guilty and convicted them to life imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected their appeals.

In his appeal in the apex court, Amol Singh said there was a great variance between the two dying declarations which affected the credibility of evidence.

Accepting his contention, the Bench said: “The discrepancies in the two dying declarations make the last declaration doubtful. The nature of the inconsistencies is such that they are certainly material.

“That being so, if would be unsafe to convict the appellant. The conviction is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charges. He be set at liberty forthwith.”