SC: Dying declarations hold strong evidentiary value in eyes of law

A two-judge bench of the apex court on 11.10.2018 in MEHBOOB & ANR. V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA disposed of the appeal of bail. The bench was headed by:-

• JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
• JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

FACTS: Appellants 1 and 2 were having an extra marital affair. Wife of appellant 1 died leaving behind 2 dying declarations upon which complaint was filed and proceedings were started in trial court. The trial court convicted the under Section 302 IPC.  The appellant 2 was appellant 1’s concubine. The conviction was mainly based on two dying declarations made by the deceased. The oral statement given by the deceased to the police personnel showed that the first appellant had poured kerosene on her and the second appellant had set her on fire.

Feeling aggrieved appellants approached the high court for the reversal of the order of trial court. But High Court upheld the judgement relying upon dying declarations.

As a result, the appellant approached the Supreme Court against the judgement of the High Court. During all this, the appellants had been in jail for around 14 years.

ISSUES:

• Whether the High Court was right in deciding that the appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased?
• Whether appellants were liable under section 302 or 304 of IPC?

CONTENTIONS:

By appellants:

• That the deceased had clearly stated in the first dying declaration that the second appellant had poured water and extinguished the fire which is a human instinct.
• That they had real intentions to save her.
• That the appellants were liable for conviction only under Section 304 Part II IPC.

By respondents:

• That extinguishing the fire had just come out of a spontaneous human instinct and in case the appellants had the real intention of saving the life of the deceased, they would have at least taken her to the hospital; instead she was just left at her paternal home and both the accused escaped from the place.
• They are liable under section 302 of IPC.

OBSERVATIONS: The Supreme Court observed that:-

• The High Court was right while deciding the case.
• Both of them are liable under section 302 of IPC.
• In the second dying declaration it had come out that both the appellants had extinguished the fire.

HELD: Court disposed of the appeals and taking in account of the High Court upheld the decision of the trial court for conviction.  However, it was made clear that in case the appellants had completed 14 years in jail, including the remission, subject to their jail conduct being satisfactory, they should be released on bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, pending a final decision for premature release.

For full judgement refer: https://www.supremecourt.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/2757/2757_2013_Judgement_11-Oct-2018.pdf