Dying Declaration and Rarest of Rare Sentencing upheld for multiple murder, with conviction sustained and death penalty justified

A dying declaration recorded by an Investigating Officer in the presence of a doctor was held admissible and reliable where the declarant was conscious, medically certified fit, and the statement was clear, voluntary, and free from tutoring; it could sustain conviction without Magistrate recording or independent corroboration. On sentence, a planned and brutal multiple murder within the family, involving helpless victims and repeated knife blows, was treated as a rarest of rare case; death penalty for one accused and life imprisonment for the other were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of a doctor was admissible and reliable enough to sustain conviction. (ii) Whether the case warranted the death penalty for Atbir and life imprisonment for Ashok.

Issue (i): Whether the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of a doctor was admissible and reliable enough to sustain conviction.

Analysis: The declaration was recorded shortly after the incident when the injured was conscious, responding to command, and certified fit for statement by the doctor. The evidence of the recording officer and the medical witnesses established that the declarant was in a fit mental state and that the statement was clear, coherent, and voluntary. It was held that there is no absolute rule that a dying declaration must be recorded by a Magistrate or be corroborated in every case. Where the declaration inspires full confidence and is free from tutoring, prompting, or imagination, it can form the sole basis of conviction.

Conclusion: The dying declaration was admissible, reliable, and sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether the case warranted the death penalty for Atbir and life imprisonment for Ashok.

Analysis: The crime was found to be a planned and brutal multiple murder committed within the family for property, involving helpless victims, bolting of the doors, repeated knife blows on vital parts, and conduct showing extreme depravity. Applying the settled sentencing principles, the Court found the offence to be among the gravest cases of extreme culpability and falling within the rarest of rare category. The aggravating circumstances were held to far outweigh any mitigating factors, and death sentence was considered the only proper punishment for Atbir. Ashok's sentence of life imprisonment was also upheld.

Conclusion: The death sentence imposed on Atbir and the life sentence imposed on Ashok were justified.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were affirmed, the challenge to the dying declaration failed, and the sentencing assessment under the rarest of rare doctrine was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A dying declaration, if found to be true, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind, can by itself sustain conviction without corroboration or Magistrate recording; in sentencing, death penalty is justified only where aggravating circumstances make the case one of the rarest of rare and life imprisonment is inadequate.

---