Reliability of Multiple Dying Declarations: Insights from Suresh v. State Of Maharashtra

Introduction

The case of Suresh v. State Of Maharashtra delivered by the Bombay High Court on March 2, 2005, serves as a pivotal reference in understanding the reliability and admissibility of multiple dying declarations in Indian criminal jurisprudence. The appellant, convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, appealed against his conviction and sentence, challenging the correctness of the judgment based primarily on the dying declarations presented as evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant was initially convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The conviction heavily relied on two written dying declarations made by the victim, Vimal, along with oral declarations alleged to have been made to her sister and brother. The High Court meticulously scrutinized the consistency and reliability of these declarations. It identified significant variances between the written statements at Exhibits 24 and 27, especially concerning the prelude and details of the incident. Additionally, omissions and discrepancies in the oral declarations further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the annulment of his conviction and sentence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While the judgment does not explicitly cite previous cases, it inherently relies on established legal principles governing the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations under Indian law. The Supreme Court of India, in cases like Mukesh & Anr vs State for NCT of Delhi and Aryan Aggarwal vs State for NCT of Delhi, has emphasized stringent scrutiny of dying declarations, especially when multiple declarations are presented.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered around the reliability and consistency of the dying declarations. Key points include:

Consistency: The court observed significant inconsistencies between the two written dying declarations, particularly in the narrative leading up to the incident and the events during the incident itself.
Reliability: The discrepancies in the timing and endorsement of the statements, along with procedural lapses such as the absence of simultaneous police presence during both declarations, raised doubts about their reliability.
Omissions: Critical omissions in the oral declarations provided by the victim’s sister and brother further undermined the prosecution's case, as these omissions were not satisfactorily explained.
Evaluation of Evidence: The court stressed that multiple dying declarations must be mutually consistent in all material aspects to be deemed reliable. In this case, the inconsistencies led to the conclusion that the declarations could not be trusted independently or collectively.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's cautious approach toward accepting multiple dying declarations, highlighting the necessity for consistency and reliability in such evidence. It sets a precedent that mere consistency in the core allegation (i.e., the act of murder) is insufficient if there are contradictions in the surrounding facts and circumstances. Future cases involving multiple dying declarations will likely refer to this judgment to argue for the stringent evaluation of the consistency and procedural integrity of the statements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Dying Declaration: In Indian law, a dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause or circumstances of their impending death. Such declarations are considered exceptions to the hearsay rule and are admissible as evidence under Section 32(1)(d) of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Reliance on Multiple Declarations: When more than one dying declaration is presented, the court must ensure that they are consistent in all material aspects. Discrepancies between multiple declarations can render them unreliable.

Reasonable Doubt: In criminal law, if the evidence does not eliminate all reasonable doubts regarding the guilt of the accused, the court must acquit.

Conclusion

The Suresh v. State Of Maharashtra judgment serves as a critical reminder of the stringent standards required for the admissibility of multiple dying declarations in criminal proceedings. It emphasizes that consistency and procedural correctness are paramount for such evidence to hold judicial weight. By meticulously analyzing the inconsistencies and omissions in the dying declarations, the court exemplified the principle that the protection of the accused's rights and the integrity of the judicial process must prevail over the prosecution's assertions. This case reinforces the need for meticulous evidence evaluation, especially when relying on statements made by individuals in their final moments.