In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court overturned a 35-year-old murder conviction, acquitting the remaining accused based on contradictory dying declarations. The division bench, comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman, ruled that in cases of multiple dying declarations, the one recorded by a magistrate or a higher officer should be relied upon, provided it is truthful and free of suspicion. This decision highlights the court's approach to ensuring justice in cases with conflicting testimonies.
Case Background:
The case dates back to 1989 when three individuals were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal was filed by one of the convicts, challenging the trial court's decision, which was primarily based on a dying declaration given to an assistant sub-inspector. The deceased had named the three accused in this initial declaration, leading to their prosecution and eventual conviction. However, a subsequent dying declaration made to a magistrate named entirely different individuals, who were not investigated or prosecuted.
Legal Arguments and Court's Reasoning:
The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court's reliance on the initial dying declaration was flawed due to the clear contradictions between the two statements. They contended that the second declaration, recorded by a magistrate, should have been given precedence. The court agreed, noting that the prosecution's case was doubtful due to the inconsistencies.
The High Court referred to several Supreme Court precedents to bolster its decision. In the case of Anmol Singh v. State of MP, it was established that when multiple dying declarations contain inconsistencies, the materiality of these discrepancies must be examined in light of surrounding facts. Additionally, in Lakhan Singh v. State of MP, the Supreme Court held that a dying declaration recorded by a higher officer, such as a magistrate, should be relied upon if it is free from suspicion.
Supreme Court References and Their Impact:
The High Court also cited Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), which outlined principles for dealing with multiple dying declarations. The ruling emphasized that when inconsistencies are found, other evidence on record should be considered for corroboration. The court underscored that the statement recorded by a magistrate or a similar higher officer could be deemed reliable, provided it meets the criteria of truthfulness and lack of suspicion.
Evaluation of Corroborative Evidence:
In the present case, the High Court found no strong corroborative evidence to support the prosecution's claim that the initial dying declaration recorded by the police was more reliable than the one recorded by the magistrate. The absence of additional evidence to substantiate the first declaration further weakened the prosecution's case.
Court's Decision:
Given the contradictions between the two dying declarations and the lack of corroborative evidence, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the trial court's conviction order. The court ruled that the initial reliance on the police-recorded declaration was not justified in law, especially when a magistrate-recorded declaration presented a conflicting narrative. Consequently, the surviving appellant was acquitted of the charges.
Implications of the Judgment:
This judgment underscores the importance of reliability and truthfulness in dying declarations, especially when multiple statements present conflicting accounts. The decision reinforces the principle that higher officer-recorded declarations, such as those by magistrates, should be given precedence if they are free from suspicion. The ruling also highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice by meticulously examining all evidence and testimonies, particularly in serious cases like murder.
Conclusion:
The Rajasthan High Court's verdict in this case serves as a significant precedent in the evaluation of dying declarations. By emphasizing the credibility of magistrate-recorded statements and the necessity of corroborative evidence, the court has set a clear standard for future cases. This decision not only provides justice to the appellant but also strengthens the judicial process in handling contradictory testimonies.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.