Verbal Declaration of Death to Close Relatives Requires Careful Evaluation Before Sentencing Defendant: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that if the conviction is based on the oral death declaration given by the deceased to a close relative, the courts must exercise due diligence in believing the statement of the close relative to convict the accused.

The bench consists of: Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia A case was witnessed in which the prosecution tried to prove the guilt of the accused based on the oral death declaration given by the deceased to his mother. The trial court convicted the defendant in a murder case based on the testimony of the deceased’s mother, who stated that her son (deceased) had made a verbal death declaration stating the names of the defendants.

However, the conviction was set aside by the High Court after the mother, who was the informant in the case, noticed a material inconsistency in the deceased mother’s account under Section 161 Cr.PC. by his son. However, during the trial phase, he testified before the court that the deceased had made a verbal declaration of death to him.

The decision confirming the Supreme Court’s determination, Justice Ravikumar he observed:

“The prosecution sought to establish the existence of an oral death declaration through the evidence of PW8, mother of the deceased, who was also the informant. It should be noted that in cases where a declaration of death is not strong evidence on its own and is therefore oral and allegedly made to a close relative (in this case allegedly to the mother), the mother has oral evidence of death. The declaration had to be handled carefully and carefully.”

The court said that although the FIR is not intended as an encyclopedia containing a chronicle of all the intricate and minute details, it can be used to support or contradict its creator, i.e., the FIR, under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act to ascertain whether the informant is a credible witness.

“The undisputed and undisputed view from the evidence on record is that the defense has filed Ext. P12 FIR or Ext. D3 statement of PW8 (deceased mother) recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC, PW8 contained the oral declaration of death made by the deceased to her. Apart from this, the prosecution had failed to establish that the deceased could or was in a state of mind to speak appropriately when PW8 reached the spot. There is no evidence in this regard in the present case except the statement of PW8 in the Court. There is no doubt that the oral declaration of death must be such as to inspire the court with full confidence in its correctness. We have no hesitation in holding that in the contextual situation set out above, the High Court was fully justified in taking into account the oral evidence of PW8 and taking serious notice of the gross negligence that emerged from him when confronted by Internal. P12 FIR and Ext. D3 had previously stated in his statement to the police that his deceased son had not made any statement regarding such a verbal death declaration..”said the court.

Therefore, finding the visual (auditory) evidence of the deceased mother (PW 8) unreliable and unreliable, the court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Accordingly, the State’s objection against the defendant’s acquittal was rejected.

Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjan Khan and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 844