The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a voluntary and reliable dying declaration, when found credible by the court, can sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC even in the absence of any corroborative evidence. This judgment clarifies the legal threshold for accepting such statements as conclusive proof, reinforcing the principle that the proximity to death lends inherent truthfulness to the victim’s final words.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the fatal stabbing of Vasudev, a textile factory worker, outside his workplace in Bhiwandi on 13 January 2017. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Doli Ledha Ravidas, assaulted Vasudev with a knife due to a long-standing dispute over an illicit relationship between Vasudev and the appellant’s wife. After the assault, Vasudev collapsed and identified his assailant as Doli before succumbing to his injuries.
Procedural History
- 13 January 2017: Victim dies after being stabbed; brother (PW4) lodges FIR.
- 14 January 2017: Police register Case No. I-08/2017; recover knife and blood-stained clothing from appellant.
- 2017: Chargesheet filed under Section 302 IPC; case committed to Sessions Court.
- 31 March 2021: Trial Court convicts appellant and sentences him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000.
- 2021: Appeal filed before Bombay High Court challenging conviction.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on grounds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to the alleged unreliability of the dying declaration, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies in witness testimony.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a dying declaration, made orally to a close relative and recorded under Section 164 CrPC, can form the sole basis for conviction under Section 302 IPC without corroboration, provided it is found to be voluntary, consistent, and free from suspicion.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the dying declaration by Vasudev to his brother (PW4) was suspicious due to the absence of independent witnesses, lack of street lighting, and no medical confirmation of the victim’s mental fitness at the time. He argued that the recovery of the knife was tainted as it was not sealed during forensic examination, and the injuries on the appellant could have been caused by accidental contact with machinery, not a struggle. He relied on Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar to assert that corroboration is expedient, if not mandatory, for dying declarations.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor argued that the dying declaration was clear, spontaneous, and consistent with the post-mortem findings and the appellant’s own injuries. She emphasized that PW4 was a sterling witness whose testimony was unchallenged in cross-examination and corroborated by his recorded statement under Section 164 CrPC. She cited Uttam v. State of Maharashtra and Manjunath v. State of Karnataka to assert that a dying declaration, if true and voluntary, is sufficient for conviction without corroboration.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, focusing on the credibility of the dying declaration and its compatibility with other material facts. It held that the declaration made by Vasudev to his brother - "Doli assaulted me with a knife" - was unequivocal, immediate, and made without prompting. The Court noted that the victim had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant, especially in his final moments, invoking the legal maxim nemo moritus praesumitur mentire - a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.
"The deceased had an opportunity to identify the Appellant and without any loss of time, voluntarily, had at the first instance what is called as 'Rule of First Opportunity', informed PW 4 upon being asked by PW4 as to what had happened."
The Court further found that PW4 qualified as a "sterling witness" - his testimony was consistent from the FIR to the Section 164 statement, withstands cross-examination, and aligns with the post-mortem report, the recovery of the knife, and the appellant’s injuries. The Court rejected the defense’s claim that the absence of street lighting invalidated identification, noting that PW2 explicitly denied it was dark at the scene.
Regarding the knife recovery, the Court relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh and John Pandian v. State, holding that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not require the recovery site to be inaccessible to others, only that it be ordinarily invisible. The knife, hidden under stones, met this standard. The Court emphasized that even if the forensic results were inconclusive, the dying declaration alone was sufficient.
The appellant’s explanation for his injuries - accidental contact with a loom - was deemed implausible. The medical witness confirmed the injuries were consistent with a struggle involving a sharp object, and the timing aligned with the incident. The Court also drew an adverse inference from the appellant’s silence during his Section 313 CrPC examination, citing Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, holding that a dying declaration, if found to be true, voluntary, and consistent with other evidence, can form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. The sentence of life imprisonment and fine was confirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Dying Declaration Can Be Sufficient Without Corroboration
- Practitioners must now argue that the reliability of a dying declaration, not its corroboration, is the decisive factor.
- Courts will examine: (a) mental fitness of the declarant, (b) opportunity to observe the assailant, (c) absence of tutoring, and (d) consistency across statements.
- A brief, spontaneous declaration is often more credible than a detailed one.
Sterling Witness Standard Applies to Dying Declaration Recipients
- The recipient of a dying declaration must be treated as a "sterling witness" if their testimony is natural, consistent, and withstands scrutiny.
- Cross-examination that fails to impeach the witness strengthens the declaration’s credibility.
- Section 164 CrPC statements, if unchallenged, serve as powerful corroborative anchors.
Recovery from Open Places Is Valid Under Section 27
-
Defence arguments that recovery from "open" or "public" places is invalid are legally untenable.
-
The test is whether the object was ordinarily visible - not whether others could access the location.
-
If the accused leads police to the hidden item, the recovery is admissible regardless of public access.
-
Practitioners should highlight the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh precedent in recovery challenges.
-
In cases with inconclusive forensic results, focus on the dying declaration’s intrinsic reliability.
-
Silence under Section 313 CrPC may be used to draw adverse inference - ensure clients are advised to explain incriminating circumstances.
