Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court referenced several pivotal cases to substantiate its reasoning:

• Moti Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 900) – Established that without clear evidence correlating the cause of death to the incident, a dying declaration might be deemed inadmissible.
• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22) – Provided a framework for evaluating the reliability and probative value of dying declarations.
• Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (AIR 1958 SC 22) – Emphasized that the format of a dying declaration does not inherently affect its admissibility or reliability.
• Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (2006 1 SCC 28) – Highlighted that medical expert opinions do not conclusively determine factual matters.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav – Clarified that dying declarations do not require corroboration unless circumnstances render them suspicious.
• Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013 14 SCC 643) – Declared the "two-finger test" unconstitutional, violating victims' rights to privacy and dignity.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously analyzed the admissibility of the victim's dying declaration, affirming its relevance under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. It dismissed the High Court's reliance on Moti Singh by highlighting the presence of a conclusive post-mortem report linking the victim's death to septicemia caused by burn injuries. The Court also addressed the credibility of hostile witnesses, reinforcing that their hostility does not inherently negate the validity of the prosecution's case, especially when the primary evidence—the dying declaration—is robust and uncorrupted.

Regarding the "two-finger test," the Court underscored its regressive and invasive nature, lacking scientific foundation, and affirmed its incompatibility with modern legal standards that prioritize victims' rights and dignity. The judgment reinforced that a victim's sexual history is irrelevant in adjudicating rape allegations, aligning with the principles enshrined in Section 53A of the Evidence Act.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in two key areas:

• Admissibility of Dying Declarations: By affirming the relevance and probative value of the victim's dying declaration, the Court fortified the evidentiary framework, ensuring that such declarations are given due weight in criminal proceedings, provided they meet the established criteria.
• Abandonment of the "Two-Finger Test": The explicit condemnation and prohibition of the "two-finger test" mark a progressive stride towards victim-centric legal processes in sexual assault cases. This eliminates a source of additional trauma for victims and aligns medical examinations with contemporary human rights standards.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when addressing the validity of dying declarations and medical examination protocols in rape cases, reinforcing the protection of victims' rights and ensuring that justice is not hindered by outdated and non-consensual practices.

Dying Declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act

A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes their death is imminent, regarding the circumstances leading to their death. Under Section 32(1), such declarations are admissible as evidence in court because the declarant cannot testify in person due to death. For a dying declaration to be relevant:

• The statement must relate to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to the death.
• The declarant must have professed an honest belief in their impending death.

In this case, the victim's statement detailing the assault and subsequent actions leading to her death qualified as a dying declaration, making it admissible evidence.

The "Two-Finger Test"

The "two-finger test" refers to a medical examination technique where two fingers are inserted into a woman's vagina to assess her sexual history, purportedly to determine if she has been previously assaulted. The Supreme Court ruled this test unconstitutional because:

• It violates the victim's right to privacy and bodily integrity.
• Lack of scientific basis renders it unreliable and intrusive.
• It perpetuates patriarchal notions that a woman's sexual history can validate or invalidate rape allegations.

Consequently, this test is banned to protect victims from further trauma and uphold their dignity in legal proceedings.