CUTTACK 11TH APRIL 2025– In a notable judgment, the Orissa High Court has ruled that a dying declaration can be relied upon as substantive evidence even if it is not addressed to a particular individual. The Division Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho passed the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by a man convicted for the 2009 murder of his brother.
The Court emphasized that a conviction can be safely recorded based on a dying declaration if it is found to be voluntary, true, and reliable, and that no corroboration is required in such cases.
“The dying declaration is a substantive evidence only for the reason that a person in acute agony is not expected to tell a lie and in all probability, it is expected from such person to disclose the truth and an order of conviction can be safely recorded based on dying declaration, if the Court is fully satisfied that the declaration made by the deceased was voluntary, true and reliable and in such case, no further corroboration can be insisted. Dying declaration need not be addressed to a particular individual and we find there is no suspicious feature in such evidence in the case in hand and there is no infirmity in it,” the Bench held.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The case pertains to the murder of the Appellant’s brother in 2009. The Appellant, along with his wife, was charged under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly murdering the deceased and attempting to destroy evidence.
While the Trial Court acquitted the co-accused (the wife), it convicted the Appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined ₹2,000. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant approached the High Court in appeal.
ARGUMENTS & OBSERVATIONS
During the hearing, the Appellant’s counsel argued that the accused’s presence at the crime scene after the incident was questionable. The High Court, however, rejected this submission:
“The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of the appellant at the spot, after committing the crime till the arrival of P.W.13 and P.W.16, is a doubtful feature, cannot be accepted.”
The Court opined that the accused stayed at the scene to dispose of the body and remove evidence, and his presence was not merely coincidental.
“Therefore, his presence at the spot after committing the crime seems to be for a particular purpose i.e. to cause disappearance of evidence from the scene of crime and in the meantime he could got noticed by P.W.13 and P.W.16.”
DYING DECLARATION AS SOLE EVIDENCE
A crucial part of the prosecution’s case was the dying declaration of the victim, who reportedly shouted the identity of his attacker moments before his death. The Court held that such statements were admissible as dying declarations.
“Whatever the deceased shouted after being assaulted by the Appellant that he was being killed by the Appellant and further shouted to save him, can certainly be relied upon as dying declaration of the deceased.”
The defense also claimed that there was no clear motive for the murder. This argument was dismissed based on testimony that the brothers had an altercation over a mango tree shortly before the incident.
“P.W.4 has stated that a fortnight prior to the incident, there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased relating to a mango tree which situated near the house of the appellant, but falling to the share of the deceased. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no motive on the part of the appellant, cannot be accepted.”
CONCLUSION
The High Court upheld the conviction and found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s findings.
“The Trial Court has rightly found the Appellant guilty of the offences charged.”
Final Order: Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.
