The Supreme Court has recently released a death row convict, acquitting him of the charges of setting his son and two brothers on fire in his Bijnore residence in 2014.
The victims were reportedly opposed to his second marriage. The Court’s decision rested on the discrepancy between the dying declarations of the victims and the testimonies of key witnesses.
A bench comprising justices B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated in its 36-page judgement, “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.”
The Court ordered the immediate release of the convict, Irfan, who has been incarcerated for eight years, after quashing his conviction and the death penalty. He had allegedly played a role in the deaths of his son Islamuddin and two brothers Irshad and Naushad on the night of August 5-6, 2014. All three succumbed to their injuries at Delhi’s Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on different dates.
Initially, the trial court relied on the dying declarations of Irshad and Islamuddin, naming Irfan as the perpetrator. This conviction and sentence were upheld by the Allahabad High Court in 2018, finding no contradictions in the statements.
The Supreme Court’s decision stemmed from a detailed examination of Indian and foreign legal opinions on the credibility of dying declarations, particularly in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence. The Court underlined that while there is a general consensus in presuming the veracity of dying declarations, great caution is warranted in determining their weight as evidence.
The bench stated, “The juristic theory regarding the acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth.”
Courts are required to establish the reliability and accuracy of the dying declaration before giving it any credence.
It stated, “Since the accused has no power of cross-examination, the courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness. The court, however, should always be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination.”
The Supreme court stated, since time immemorial, despite a general consensus of presuming that the dying declaration is true, such statements are not accepted in strict sense.
It stated, “Rather the general course of action has been that judge decides whether the essentials of a dying declaration are met and if it can be admissible, once done, it is upon the duty of the court to see the extent to which the dying declaration is entitled to credit.”
Furthermore, it stated that courts are first required to satisfy themselves that the dying declaration in question is reliable and truthful before placing any reliance upon it.
The Allahabad High Court had also discredited a crucial prosecution witness.
It stated “The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.”
Currently, it is difficult to rest the conviction solely based on the two dying declarations, the apex court stated, adding the Allahabad High Court disbelieved the testimony of a key prosecution witness.
It stated, “We, therefore, allow these appeals and acquit the appellant-convict of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant-convict is, therefore, directed to be released forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case or cases.”
On the night of August 5-6, 2014, the victims, who were sleeping at Irfan’s residence in Najibabad, Bijnore, woke up to flames and smoke, resulting in severe burn injuries. They later succumbed to their injuries at Delhi’s RML Hospital.”
