{"id":1775,"date":"2024-04-22T11:13:02","date_gmt":"2024-04-22T05:43:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1775"},"modified":"2024-04-22T11:13:02","modified_gmt":"2024-04-22T05:43:02","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-true-and-voluntary-dying-declaration-can-be-sole-basis-of-conviction-without-any-corroboration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-true-and-voluntary-dying-declaration-can-be-sole-basis-of-conviction-without-any-corroboration\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that true and voluntary dying declaration can be sole basis of conviction without any corroboration"},"content":{"rendered":"

NAEEM\u00a0 [<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)] Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\u00a0 [<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1978 OF 2022)<\/p>\n

(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI, J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 17th December 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1589 of 2018 and 7393 of 2017, whereby the Division Bench dismissed both the criminal appeals preferred by the appellants, namely, Pappi @ Mashkoor (accused No.1), Naeema (accused No.2) and Naeem (accused No.3) and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 24th October 2017.<\/p>\n

Issue: <\/u><\/strong>Whether the judgement convicting the appellant deserves to be interfered with by this court?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Shri Mohd. Siddiqui submits that the conviction is 7 based only on the dying declaration of the deceased (Ex. Ka6). He submits that the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) is not free from doubt. It is submitted that the Discharge Slip (Ext. Ka-7) would show that the deceased was discharged from the District Hospital, Moradabad on 1st December 2016 at 05:00 pm. It is therefore impossible that the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) could have been recorded between 08:48 pm and 09:15 pm. The learned counsel therefore submits that the said dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) cannot be said to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent so as to base the conviction solely on the basis of the same.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Per contra, Shri Thakur submits that, both the trial court and the High Court, on the correct appreciation of evidence, rightly convicted the accused\/appellants and as such, no interference would be warranted with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. The learned AAG submits that Raj Kumar Bhaskar (PW-5), the then Naib Tehsildar, has deposed about the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6). Shri Thakur submits that the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) also contains the certification by Dr. A.K. Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital, 8 Moradabad regarding the medical fitness of the victim both prior to and after recording the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6).<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cdying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court. The Court is required to satisfy itself 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. It has been held that the rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. The Court has observed that 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NAEEM\u00a0 [APPELLANT(S)] Vs.\u00a0 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\u00a0 [RESPONDENT(S)] (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1978 OF 2022) (2JB, B.R. GAVAI and SANDEEP MEHTA JJ., delivered by B.R. GAVAI, J.)   Facts: The present appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 17th December 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1777,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1775","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1775","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1775"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1775\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1778,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1775\/revisions\/1778"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1777"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}