Introduction:

In a landmark ruling, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of an accused in a 1997 murder case, underscoring the necessity of corroborating oral dying declarations before they can be relied upon for convictions. The division bench, comprising Justices Ilesh J Vohra and Niral R Mehta, highlighted the importance of a careful and prudent approach in examining such declarations to ensure they are voluntary, truthful, and made in a conscious state of mind.

Arguments Presented:

The State, appealing against the trial court’s acquittal, argued that the oral dying declaration made by the deceased Arvind should be sufficient to convict the accused. They contended that Arvind, before succumbing to his injuries, had named Shashikant Patel and others as his attackers. This declaration was made in the presence of police officer Janardan Mahida, making it a crucial piece of evidence. The State emphasized that despite the lack of written documentation, the oral statement provided clear identification of the perpetrators and should be given significant weight in the judicial process.

The defense argued that the oral dying declaration lacked credibility and could not be solely relied upon for conviction. They pointed out that the declaration was not recorded in writing and that there was no corroborating evidence to support it. The defense also highlighted the condition of the deceased at the time of the declaration, questioning whether Arvind was in a fit state of mind to make a coherent and truthful statement. They argued that the trial court had rightly acquitted the accused due to the lack of reliable evidence and the need for corroboration of the oral declaration.

Court’s Judgement

The Gujarat High Court, after a thorough examination of the case, upheld the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused. The bench emphasized that while an oral dying declaration can form the basis of a conviction if found to be truthful and voluntary, it is prudent for courts to seek corroborating evidence. The court noted that a mechanical reliance on dying declarations, without scrutinizing their validity, can be dangerous.

The court observed that Arvind was in a semi-conscious state and succumbed to his injuries within minutes of making the declaration. This raised significant doubts about his ability to make a clear and reliable statement.

The court highlighted that the oral dying declaration was not reduced to writing by the police, which weakened its evidentiary value. In the absence of written documentation, the credibility of the oral statement was questionable.

The court reiterated that in cases where there is any suspicion regarding the correctness of a dying declaration, corroborating evidence is essential to support a conviction. The trial court had rightly sought such corroboration and found none.

The family members of the deceased, who were examined as witnesses, did not mention any oral dying declaration made to the police. This further undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s case.

The police officer, Janardan Mahida, did not testify that the deceased was in a fit state of mind while making the declaration. This lack of confirmation from the key witness added to the doubts about the declaration’s validity.

The High Court concluded that the trial court’s skepticism towards the oral dying declaration was justified and based on a careful assessment of the evidence. The court underscored that the reasons for not accepting the declaration were reasonable and well-founded, considering the circumstances under which it was made.