2015 (9) TMI 1067 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Due to Disputed Dying Declaration

Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Versus State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision and upheld the trial court's acquittal in a case where the credibility of a dying declaration ... Credibility of dying declaration - Conviction on the basis of dying declaration alone - Held that:- The sanctity is attached to a dying declaration because it comes from the mouth of a dying person. If the dying declaration is recorded not directly from the actual words of the maker but as dictated by somebody else, in our opinion, this by itself creates a lot of suspicion about credibility of such statement and the prosecution has to clear the same to the satisfaction of the court. The accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt which was rightly given to them by the trial court - appeals are allowed. Issues Involved:1. Credibility of the dying declaration (Ex.P-22).2. Evaluation of witness testimonies.3. Justification of the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Credibility of the Dying Declaration (Ex.P-22):The prosecution's case was primarily based on the dying declaration (Ex.P-22) of the deceased Pradeep. The trial court found multiple issues with Ex.P-22, noting that it was recorded by a constable (PW-30) as dictated by PW-36 (PSI), rather than in the actual words of the deceased. Additionally, there were discrepancies such as over-writing with regard to the time and insertion of names in different ink. The trial court concluded that these factors undermined the credibility of Ex.P-22, making it unsafe to base a conviction on it. The High Court, however, found Ex.P-22 credible and genuine, stating that it was recorded naturally and truthfully in the presence of a medical officer (PW-25), who confirmed that the deceased was in a position to give a statement.2. Evaluation of Witness Testimonies:The prosecution presented 37 witnesses, including three eye-witnesses (PW-4, PW-5, and PW-15), who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's version. The trial court considered the testimonies of PW-25 (Dr. Balakrishna), PW-30 (Rajashekar), and PW-36 (Kodandaram, PSI) in conjunction with Ex.P-22. PW-25 did not confirm that he was treating Pradeep when he was brought to the hospital and admitted to over-writing on Ex.P-22. PW-30 admitted that he did not record the statement in the words of Pradeep but as dictated by PW-36. The trial court found these testimonies insufficient to establish the credibility of Ex.P-22. The High Court, on the other hand, relied on the same testimonies to uphold the dying declaration, asserting that the deceased was in a fit state to make the statement.3. Justification of the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:The Supreme Court emphasized the principles governing appeals against acquittal, stating that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal and that the appellate court should be slow to disturb findings of fact by the trial court unless they are palpably wrong or result in grave injustice. The trial court's view that Ex.P-22 did not inspire confidence was deemed a possible view based on the evidence. The High Court's interference with the acquittal was found unjustified as it did not adequately consider the strengthened presumption of innocence and the trial court's advantage of seeing the witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment of acquittal, setting aside the High Court's conviction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's acquittal. The appellants were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, provided they were not required in any other case.