This case arose out of a fight between two rival groups. According to the prosecution, the appellant, Khushal, along with others, attacked Baboolal (the victim) using swords and spears, causing multiple injuries. The attack happened around 9 PM in a narrow street in Nagpur. Baboolal later died from the injuries.
Soon after the incident, three dying declarations were recorded first by the attending doctor at the hospital, second by a police sub-inspector, and third by a First-Class Magistrate. Based on this evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted Khushal and another accused, Tukaram, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34.
On appeal, the High Court found that there was doubt about Tukaram's identity and acquitted him. However, it upheld Khushal’s conviction, noting that the dying declarations were trustworthy and also pointed out that Khushal had been absconding, which supported his guilt.
Issue before the Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court in Kushal Rao vs. The State of Bombay was whether a person can be convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code solely based on a dying declaration, without any additional supporting evidence. The court had to consider if such a statement, made by the deceased, could be treated as fully reliable and sufficient for conviction. Questions were raised about the need for corroboration, the mental and physical condition of the person making the declaration, and whether dying declarations should be viewed with caution since they are not made under oath and cannot be cross-examined.
You can also read the blog of Justice Will No Longer Be 'Blind': Supreme Court Embraces New Symbolism.
For more information, visit [ALEC Enquiry].
Arguments from the Petitioner
The appellant argued that it is risky to convict someone just on the basis of a dying declaration, as it is not made under oath and there is no opportunity to test its truth through cross-examination. They pointed out that the person making such a statement might be confused or mentally unstable at the time, and might even imagine or exaggerate the facts. Therefore, they claimed that a dying declaration alone is not trustworthy and must be backed by other evidence.
Arguments from the Respondent
The prosecution argued that there was clear motive, as the deceased Baboolal had ties with a rival group and was not on good terms with the accused. According to them, the accused including Khushal attacked Baboolal with weapons out of revenge. The dying declarations, which Baboolal gave separately to a doctor, a sub-inspector, and a magistrate while in the hospital, clearly named the attackers and described the incident. The prosecution insisted that these statements were consistent, made in a conscious state, and were strong enough to base a murder conviction.
Analysis of the Court
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the legal position regarding dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). The Court explained that although hearsay evidence is usually not admissible in court, dying declarations are treated as an exception, based on the belief that a person on the verge of death is unlikely to lie.
The Court clarified that there is no fixed rule that a dying declaration must be supported by other evidence to be accepted. Instead, each case must be assessed individually, keeping in mind the conditions under which the dying statement was made. The Court rejected the idea that dying declarations are inherently weaker than other forms of evidence. If properly recorded, they can be as reliable and strong as any other piece of evidence.
Importantly, the Court observed that a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate, in the form of questions and answers and in the declarant’s own words, carries greater evidentiary value than an oral statement later reported by someone else. The reliability of such a declaration depends on factors like the injured person's ability to observe and recall events, the lighting at the scene, any chances of coaching or inconsistency, and the mental state of the person at the time of giving the statement.
In the present case, the Court noted that three consistent dying declarations named the same accused and matched the medical evidence. Since these declarations were clear, coherent, and free from doubt, the Court held that they could be relied upon without the need for further corroboration.
