1998 (4) TMI 578 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction based on the dying declaration (Exh. 2).
2. Inconsistency between two dying declarations (Exh. 5/4 and Exh. 2).
3. Admissibility and probative value of the dying declaration.
4. Corroboration of the dying declaration with circumstantial evidence.
5. Conduct and omissions of investigating officers affecting the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Conviction Based on the Dying Declaration (Exh. 2):
The main issue was whether the courts were justified in convicting the appellant based on the dying declaration (Exh. 2) of the deceased. The Supreme Court emphasized that a dying declaration is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and is substantive evidence. The Court noted that the dying declaration does not require corroboration to form the basis of a conviction. The Court found that the dying declaration (Exh. 2), recorded by the II Class Judicial Magistrate, was reliable and true, and thus upheld the conviction.

2. Inconsistency Between Two Dying Declarations (Exh. 5/4 and Exh. 2):
The appellant contended that there were two dying declarations, Exh. 5/4 and Exh. 2, which were inconsistent. The Court found that the original of Exh. 5/4 was not on record, and the ASI who recorded it was not examined. Therefore, Exh. 5/4 was deemed inadmissible. Consequently, Exh. 2 remained the sole dying declaration and was rightly relied upon for convicting the appellant.

3. Admissibility and Probative Value of the Dying Declaration:
The Court discussed the legal principles surrounding the admissibility and probative value of dying declarations. It noted that while dying declarations are a form of hearsay, they are an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay and State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar, to highlight that a dying declaration, even if not in question-answer form or lacking a doctor's certification, can still be reliable if the recorder has satisfied themselves about the declarant's mental fitness.

4. Corroboration of the Dying Declaration with Circumstantial Evidence:
Although corroboration of a dying declaration is not necessary, the Court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support Exh. 2. This included the presence of kerosene smell in the room, the postmortem report indicating burn injuries and kerosene smell on the scalp, and the behavior of the appellant, such as delaying to open the locked house. These circumstances corroborated the dying declaration that the appellant had set his wife on fire.

5. Conduct and Omissions of Investigating Officers Affecting the Case:
The Court criticized the investigating officers for creating confusion by bringing in Exh. 5/4 and GD Entry 517, and for their omissions which seemed to favor the appellant. The Court stressed that such acts or omissions should not benefit the accused, as it would perpetuate the mischief and deny justice. The prosecution's case should be examined without being influenced by the contaminated conduct of the officials.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant based on the dying declaration (Exh. 2) and dismissed the appeal. The appellant, who was on bail, was ordered to surrender to serve out the sentence imposed upon him.