Introduction

The case of Rajendra v. The State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 422) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on May 15, 2024, delves into the intricacies of utilizing a dying declaration as the sole basis for a criminal conviction. The appellant, Rajendra Kolhe, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his wife, Rekha Kolhe. The crux of the appeal centered on the credibility and admissibility of the dying declaration recorded from the victim, and whether it sufficed to uphold the conviction without additional corroborative evidence.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the Bombay High Court, arguing inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the reliability of the dying declaration. The Supreme Court's comprehensive analysis not only reaffirmed the conviction but also shed light on the judicial stance regarding dying declarations in the Indian legal framework.

Summary of the Judgment

In the trial court, Rajendra Kolhe was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC, based on the dying declaration of his wife, Rekha, who succumbed to burn injuries allegedly inflicted by Rajendra and his brother-in-law. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the conviction. Rajendra then sought bail, which was initially rejected but later granted in 2016 after serving nine years. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the legitimacy of the dying declaration and pointing out inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence, particularly focusing on the dying declaration (Ex. 59) and corroborative testimonies. While acknowledging minor inconsistencies, the Court determined that the core of the victim's statement remained credible and reliable. Emphasizing established legal precedents, the Court concluded that the dying declaration was sufficient to uphold the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and directing the appellant to surrender to serve his sentence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several critical precedents that reinforce the validity and weight of dying declarations in Indian jurisprudence:

• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958): Established that dying declarations can form the sole basis of conviction without the need for corroboration, provided they are deemed reliable.
• Paniben (Smt.) v. State of Gujarat (1992): Reiterated that dying declarations should be scrutinized for voluntariness and absence of coaching but can be acted upon without corroboration.
• Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): Highlighted the sanctity of dying declarations, positioning them as reliable evidence when properly substantiated.
• Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (2008): Emphasized the higher acceptability of dying declarations due to the extremity under which they are made.
• Sudhakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012): Affirmed that voluntary and truthful dying declarations can suffice for conviction without additional evidence.
• Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008): Clarified that the reliability of multiple dying declarations is paramount, not their quantity.
• Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010): Stressed careful scrutiny of multiple dying declarations to ascertain their reliability.
• Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013): Asserted that each dying declaration should be independently assessed, regardless of variations among them.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning hinged on several pillars:

• Adherence to Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court underscored that dying declarations are inherently relevant when related to the cause or circumstances leading to death, irrespective of the declarant's awareness of impending death.
• Reliability and Credibility: Despite minor inconsistencies, the Court found the dying declaration (Ex. 59) to be credible, given that it was corroborated by the victim's medical history and the lack of motive for deception.
• Assessment of Witness Testimonies: The Court navigated through contradictions in prosecution witnesses' statements, attributing some discrepancies to natural lapses over time. It maintained that the core narrative remained steadfast.
• Legal Precedents: By aligning with established case law, the Court reinforced the judiciary's stance on the robustness of dying declarations as sole evidence.
• Absence of Corroborative Evidence: Acknowledging that the dying declaration stood uncorroborated, the Court affirmed that in the light of its sanctity and reliability, it was sufficient for conviction.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judicial confidence in dying declarations, especially in cases where corroborative evidence may be scarce or non-existent. It sets a precedent for future cases by:

• Affirming the Sufficiency of Dying Declarations: Courts can rely on a well-substantiated dying declaration to convict, even in the absence of additional evidence.
• Guiding Evaluation Standards: Provides a framework for assessing the credibility of dying declarations, emphasizing voluntary issuance and consistency.
• Clarifying the Weight of Dying Declarations: Establishes that dying declarations hold substantial evidentiary value, standing on par with other forms of evidence when properly vetted.
• Encouraging Prompt Recording: Highlights the importance of swift and accurate recording of dying declarations to preserve their integrity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Dying Declaration

A dying declaration refers to a statement made by a person who believes their death is imminent. Under Indian law, specifically Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, such declarations are admissible as evidence in court to explain the cause or circumstances of their impending death.

Corroboration

Corroboration involves providing additional evidence to support a primary piece of evidence. While corroborative evidence strengthens a case, this judgment establishes that a credible dying declaration can be sufficient on its own without the need for further evidence.

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC)

This section pertains to the examination of witnesses by recording their statements before the trial. It ensures that witness testimonies are captured systematically, especially when their immediate attendance might be problematic.

Cross-Examination

Cross-examination is the process where the opposing party challenges the evidence presented by the other side. It serves to test the credibility and reliability of the witness's testimony.

Section 302 IPC

This section deals with punishment for murder. Conviction under this section mandates a sentence of life imprisonment, underscoring the gravity of the offense.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra v. The State of Maharashtra underscores the pivotal role that dying declarations play within the Indian criminal justice system. By validating the dying declaration as sufficient evidence for conviction, the Court affirms the reliability and sanctity of such statements when they are consistent, voluntary, and corroborated by credible testimonies.

This judgment not only reaffirms existing legal doctrines but also provides clarity on handling cases where traditional corroborative evidence may be limited. It serves as a guiding beacon for future deliberations, ensuring that justice is served while maintaining stringent checks on the evidentiary standards required for convictions.

Ultimately, the case reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the truth and ensuring that victims' voices are heard and given due weight, even in their final moments.