{"id":242232,"date":"2021-01-14T12:15:23","date_gmt":"2021-01-14T06:45:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=242232"},"modified":"2021-01-29T17:29:00","modified_gmt":"2021-01-29T11:59:00","slug":"ori-hc-comprehensive-principles-governing-dying-declaration-and-remission-of-sentence-reiterated-appeal-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/14\/ori-hc-comprehensive-principles-governing-dying-declaration-and-remission-of-sentence-reiterated-appeal-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Ori HC | Comprehensive Principles governing \u201cDying Declaration\u201d and \u201cRemission of Sentence\u201d reiterated; Appeal dismissed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Orissa High Court:<\/strong> A Division Bench of S.K Mishra and Savitri Ratho JJ. dismissed the appeal and directed to adjudication application for remission within 60 days of the receipt of the application.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case are the deceased-Urmila had married the appellant-accused in 1994 during which a sum of Rs 20, 000 gold chain, ring etc., were given as per the demand made from the side of the appellant. After the marriage, the appellant further demanded a sum of Rs 10, 000 and he used to assault Urmila and force her to bring the said amount as dowry. The matter was settled by village heads on many different occasions until one night, on 07-07-2003 appellant set Urmila on fire after forcibly opening the door while she was sleeping with her son. Urmila had sustained extensive burn injuries and succumbed to death after recording her dying declaration before Basanta Kumar Jena, Officer-in-charge of Binjharpur P.S. where the FIR was lodged. All the circumstantial articles were collected for forensic examination and investigation. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant based on upon the dying declaration of the deceased which has been established beyond all reasonable doubt as there was no eye witness to prove the contrary. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant-accused has filed the instant appeal assailing the said conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 for acquittal or remission of sentence.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the appellants Ramani Kanta Pattnaik and Savitri Ratho disputed the veracity of the dying declaration as the F.I.R. lodged implicates six persons including the appellant but in the dying declaration no such implication has been made out against five other persons, who happen to be the relations of the appellant. It was further submitted that no medical examination was conducted before the drying declaration was recorded to the effect that the deceased was in the right mental state to have recorded the same. It was further submitted that there is no independent corroboration of the dying declaration; it cannot be the sole basis of conviction and hence it is liable to be rejected.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondents Subir Kumar Pallit submitted that if the dying declaration is accepted to be true and voluntary, conviction can be upheld on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony and uncorroborated dying declaration of the deceased. It was also submitted that it is a mere rule of prudence and not the ultimate test as to whether or not the dying declaration was truthful or voluntary. It was also argued that no format has been prescribed for recording a dying declaration.<\/p>\n

The main issue in the instant case is whether the judgment of conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge only on the basis of the dying declaration stands scrutiny or not.<\/p>\n

The court relied on judgments Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay<\/em>; [1958] S.C.R. 552 and Paniben v. State of Gujarat<\/em> (1992) 2 SCC 474<\/a> wherein it was held that<\/p>\n

\u201cThough a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Comprehensive principles regarding dying declaration are <\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n