Introduction:

In the case of Daktar Bhoi v. State of Odisha (JCRLA No. 21 of 2010), the Orissa High Court upheld the conviction of an individual for the murder of his brother, emphasizing the evidentiary value of dying declarations. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho, ruled that a dying declaration does not need to be addressed to a specific person to be admissible. Even spontaneous exclamations made in distress, identifying the assailant, can be considered valid dying declarations if the court is convinced of their voluntariness and truthfulness.

Prosecution’s Case:

On June 28, 2009, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Larambha outpost received an anonymous call reporting a murder in Damkipali village. Upon arrival, the informant, son of the deceased, provided a written statement detailing the incident. He alleged that while he was resting post-lunch, his uncle (P.W.13) and cousin (P.W.16) informed him that the appellant had assaulted his father. The appellant allegedly tied the deceased’s neck to a wooden post using a napkin and stabbed him multiple times with a trident. Subsequently, the appellant placed the body in a gunny bag, loaded it onto a bicycle, and transported it towards the jungle. Based on this information, an FIR was registered under Sections 302 (punishment for murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After investigation, charges were filed against the appellant and his wife.

Arguments by the Defense:

The defense contended that the testimonies of P.W.13 and P.W.16 were inconsistent regarding the exact words heard during the deceased’s exclamations. They argued that such discrepancies cast doubt on the reliability of their statements. Additionally, the defense questioned the credibility of the dying declaration, suggesting that it lacked the formal structure typically expected in such evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence presented:

• Post-Mortem Findings: The autopsy revealed multiple stab wounds, confirming the homicidal nature of the death.
• Eyewitness Testimonies: P.W.13 testified to hearing cries for help and witnessing the appellant near the deceased with a lathi. P.W.16 corroborated this, stating he heard the deceased exclaiming that the appellant was killing him and pleading for help.
• Discrepancies in Testimonies: The court acknowledged minor differences in the exact words heard by P.W.13 and P.W.16 but attributed these to factors like age-related auditory perception differences. Such minor inconsistencies were deemed non-material and did not undermine the overall credibility of their accounts.
• Dying Declaration: The court emphasized that a dying declaration holds substantial evidentiary value, even if not directed at a specific individual. Spontaneous statements made by individuals in the throes of death are presumed truthful, given the solemnity of the situation. The bench cited precedents underscoring that the absence of a formal question-and-answer format does not invalidate a dying declaration.
• Res Gestae: The immediate disclosure of the incident by P.W.13 and P.W.16 to other villagers was considered relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, reinforcing the sequence of events.

Considering the cumulative evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.