Skip to main content

‘Dying declaration’ no basis for conviction unless trustworthy

Observing that unless a dying declaration is trustworthy, it cannot be made the basis for conviction, particularly if the person making it was not conscious and well-oriented while making the statement, the Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of allegedly murdering his wife by setting her on fire. His wife had left several dying declarations, oral as well as written, inconsistent with one another.
In one version, she claimed her husband had set her on fire. The incident occurred on January 7, 2016, at her matrimonial house. She died due to burn injuries at the Civil Hospital, Nashik.
“It is well settled that in case of plural dying declarations, they should be consistent with each other. Though it is said that a dying person does not speak lies, but there is no initial presumption that dying declaration contains the truth and nothing but the truth. The one who makes a dying declaration is not available for cross-examination and unless it is shown that a dying declaration is trustworthy, and the person making the declaration is conscious and well-oriented while making the statement, the dying declaration cannot be made the basis for conviction,” said Justice A M Badar.
In her dying declarations made before sub-inspector of Indira Nagar Police Station, Nashik, and the executive magistrate, the wife had said she sustained accidental burns by flaring of the stove. However, the uncle of the woman lodged a complaint against the husband and there was an attempt to record the statement of the wife again. Her statement was taken by the police again. In her declaration made later, she said she was set on fire by her husband, which is the oral declaration she allegedly made in front of her parents and uncle.
“In this case of plural dying declarations, one set of oral as well as officially recorded dying declaration points out accidental death whereas another set points out homicidal death. As such, both these sets of dying declarations are divergent and inconsistent on material particulars. With this evidence, the liberty of the applicant needs to be restored as trial will take its own time,” said the High Court. The court also raised questions on how the wife had been declared fit to make a statement on January 9, when she had been declared unfit a few hours earlier. “This is a question which will have to be answered in the trial after cross-examination of the medical officer,” said Justice Badar.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a