In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for caution when basing convictions on oral dying declarations made to close relatives. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjan Khan & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2129 of 2014). The appeal sought to overturn the acquittal of three individuals accused of murder by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 2013.
Background of the Case
The case relates to the murder of Naseem Khan, which took place on October 1, 1996, near the village well of Karaikheda in Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, the accused—Ramjan Khan, Musaf Khan, and Habib Khan—attacked Naseem Khan with a sickle, axe, and stick, causing his death. The trial court had convicted the accused in 1998, relying heavily on oral testimonies, including an alleged dying declaration made to the deceased’s mother, Sitara Bi (PW-8), as well as eyewitness accounts from Naseem Khan’s brothers, Haseen Khan (PW-5) and Farid Khan (PW-9).
The trial court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 35,000. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned this conviction in 2013, citing inconsistencies and unreliability in the witnesses’ testimonies, particularly the dying declaration.
Key Legal Issues
The appeal in the Supreme Court primarily revolved around two legal issues:
1. Reliability of Oral Dying Declarations: The prosecution’s case relied on the oral statement made by the deceased to his mother, Sitara Bi, moments before his death. The Supreme Court underscored that oral dying declarations, especially those made to close relatives, require careful scrutiny due to the potential for emotional influence and the lack of corroboration.
2. Reappraisal of Eyewitness Testimonies: The court also evaluated whether the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-9, the deceased’s minor brothers, were consistent and credible. The defense argued that their statements were marked by omissions and contradictions, which cast doubt on their reliability.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice C.T. Ravikumar, writing the judgment, noted that while a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, it must inspire full confidence. “When the declaration is verbal and made to a close relative, it demands even greater caution to avoid miscarriage of justice,” the court observed. The bench further held that the trial court did not exercise sufficient caution in assessing the dying declaration, which was not corroborated by other reliable evidence.
The court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that an oral dying declaration is inherently weak as a piece of evidence and must be corroborated by additional independent evidence for a conviction to sustain. It further observed that “a dying declaration is not a substantive piece of evidence but can be used to corroborate or contradict the informant’s testimony.”
Decision
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had correctly assessed the evidence and granted the accused the benefit of doubt. It ruled that the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses, along with the lack of corroboration for the oral dying declaration, made the conviction unsustainable.
“The High Court’s acquittal was based on a reasonably possible view of the evidence, and interference would be unjustified,” the court concluded, dismissing the State’s appeal.
