For dying declaration to be the sole basis of the conviction; certain factors to be taken into consideration: Supreme Court

The conviction of accused no.2 & 3 (Naeema and Naeem), who were charged with the murder of their sister-in-law, Shahin Parveen, was overturned by the Supreme Court of India because the sole evidence against them, a dying declaration, did not contain any specific role of how they assisted accused No. 1 Pappi @ Mashkoor in setting her ablaze. However, the conviction of Pappi @ Mashkoor was upheld based on the dying declaration, which attributed the motive and act of setting Shahin Parveen ablaze to him.

Brief of the Legal Process:
A first information report (FIR) was registered in connection with the incident based on the complaint by the victim, the police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, where charges were framed against the accused for offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine. The accused appealed the trial court's decision in the High Court, which dismissed their appeals and affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. The accused then filed appeals in the Supreme Court.

Brief of the Case:
The victim, Shahin Parveen, was admitted to the hospital with 80% deep thermal and facial burns. She gave a statement to the police, alleging that the accused had set her ablaze after pressuring her into entering the profession of immoral trafficking and prostitution, and later she succumbed to her injuries. And the prosecution relied on the victim's dying declaration as the sole basis for the conviction.

Observations Made by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence in the court based cited a specific case of Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi1 where it has laid down certain factors to be taken into consideration while resting the conviction on the basis of dying declaration.
The Court pointed to the para (22) of the said judgment, which reads thus:

"22. The analysis of the above decisions clearly shows that:

(i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court.

(ii) The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.

(iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. 1 (2010) 9 SCC 1 : 2010 INSC 491 9

(iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. (v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.

(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction.

(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.

(viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded.

(ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail.

(x) If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration."

The court found that the victim was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination. The court held that the dying declaration was coherent and consistent and could be relied upon without independent corroboration.

In Conclusion, although the Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was "cogent, trustworthy, and reliable to base the conviction on the same" because it was recorded before Shahin Parveen was admitted to the hospital and certified by a medical officer as being fully conscious and fit to give a statement" and found that there was no evidence to suggest that the dying declaration was the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination. However, the Court noted that the same dying declaration did not contain any specific role of how Naeema and Naeem in assisting the accused no.1 i.e Pappi @ Mashkoor in setting Shahin Parveen ablaze. As a result, the court found that Naeema and Naeem were entitled to the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of specific roles attributed to them in the dying declaration and acquitted them of all charges..

NAEEM v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.1979 OF 2022
Court: The Supreme Court
Coram: B.R. GAVAI, J.