Dying Declarations Can’t Always Be Sole Basis For Conviction: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, while acquitting a death-row convict, said that ‘great caution’ must be exercised while relying on dying declarations even though the law attaches a presumption of truthfulness to such statements.

The convict was acquitted of the charge of setting on fire his son and two brothers, who were allegedly against his second marriage, at his home in UP’s Bijnor in 2014, as the court found that dying declarations of two victims were not in sync with testimonies of key witnesses.

“Dying declaration while carrying a presumption of being true must be wholly reliable and inspire confidence. Where there is any suspicion over the veracity of the same or the evidence on record shows that the dying declaration is not true, it will only be considered as a piece of evidence but cannot be the basis for conviction alone,” a bench of Justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra said in the 36-page judgement.

Irfan, the convict in question, was in jail for eight years, for his alleged role in the death of his son Islamuddin and brothers Irshad and Naushad. The trial court, relying on the dying declarations of Irshad and Islamuddin, held Irfan guilty and sentenced him to death.

The Allahabad High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment in 2018 after finding no discrepancies.

However, the Supreme Court said it was not satisfied that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and ordered Irfan’s release immediately.

The apex court accepted senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan’s argument that the declarations were made when the men were suffering from 80 per cent burns, calling into question their ‘mental condition’.