A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case examines whether the sole reliance on a dying declaration for convicting accused persons under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is legally tenable. The appellants were accused of setting the deceased ablaze following a dispute over property and coercion into immoral activities. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of one appellant based solely on a dying declaration deemed trustworthy and reliable but acquitted two others for lack of specific evidence implicating them in the crime.

Keywords: Dying declaration, Sole evidence, Sections 302 and 34 IPC, Corroboration, Criminal Appeal.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Naeem v. State of Uttar Pradesh
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1978 of 2022
• Judgment Date: March 5, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Hon’ble Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
• Author: Justice B.R. Gavai
• Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 36; 2024 INSC 169
• Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Judgments Overruled: None
• Law Subjects: Criminal Law; Evidence

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from an incident on December 1, 2016, where the deceased, a widow, sustained fatal burns allegedly inflicted by her brother-in-law and others. She recorded a dying declaration naming the accused. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the sole reliance on the dying declaration for convicting the accused was justified.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Incident: The deceased, living with her children and her brother-in-law’s family, was allegedly forced into immoral activities and faced harassment after refusing.

2. Dying Declaration: The deceased stated her brother-in-law poured kerosene and set her ablaze, while his wife and her brother assisted him.

3. Medical Evidence: The deceased, with 80% burns, was found fit to make the statement by the attending doctor.

4. Prosecution Case: The accused pressured the deceased for immoral activities, which she resisted. On the incident day, a quarrel escalated to the accused setting her ablaze.

5. Defense Case: The main accused claimed alibi, asserting the deceased committed suicide due to depression.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC?
2. Were the deceased’s mental state and the procedural requirements for recording the dying declaration satisfied?
3. Was the evidence against each accused sufficient to convict them?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The dying declaration lacked credibility due to procedural discrepancies, including a timing conflict in medical records.
2. The deceased may have been influenced or not fully conscious, rendering her statement unreliable.
3. The absence of corroborative evidence necessitated acquittal.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The dying declaration was recorded by an authorized official in the presence of a certified medical practitioner.
2. The deceased was declared fit and conscious at the time of recording the statement.
3. Conviction can be based solely on a credible dying declaration.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860:

   • Section 302: Punishment for Murder
   • Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention

2. Evidence Act, 1872:

   • Section 32: Statements of relevant facts made by persons who cannot be called as witnesses.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Dying Declarations as Sole Evidence: The court reiterated that a dying declaration could solely sustain a conviction if it inspires full confidence and is corroborated by circumstances.
2. Fitness for Declaration: The victim’s state was medically certified, fulfilling legal requirements.
3. Differentiated Convictions: While the principal accused was directly implicated, others lacked clear evidence, warranting acquittal.

b. Obiter Dicta

The court emphasized judicial prudence in relying solely on dying declarations without corroboration and recognized the limited scope of benefit of doubt.

c. Guidelines

1. A dying declaration must:
   • Be free from tutoring or prompting.
   • Be recorded in compliance with procedural safeguards.
   • Clearly implicate the accused.
2. Courts must ensure careful scrutiny of the declaration’s contents and circumstances.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment demonstrates the judiciary’s caution in assessing dying declarations as sole evidence. It aligns with established jurisprudence while emphasizing procedural adherence and evidentiary scrutiny.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 1.
2. Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22.

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872