Contradictory Dying Declarations Lead to Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Importance of Consistency in Evidence

The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted Jeet Singh, the sole surviving appellant in a murder case from 1985, overturning the conviction handed down by the Sessions Court in Ganganagar. The bench, comprising Justices Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman, highlighted the contradictions between two dying declarations made by the victim, Kalwant Singh, and the absence of reliable corroborative evidence.

In September 1985, Kalwant Singh was allegedly attacked by Jeet Singh, Karnail Singh, and Dalip Singh in his farm. Kalwant Singh’s first dying declaration implicated Jeet Singh and his accomplices, leading to their conviction under Sections 302/34 and 447 IPC. However, in a subsequent dying declaration, Singh accused different individuals, resulting in significant contradictions.

The court noted the substantial discrepancies between the two dying declarations. In the first, recorded on September 12, 1985, Kalwant Singh named Jeet Singh, Karnail Singh, and Dalip Singh as his attackers. In the second declaration, recorded on September 16, 1985, Singh implicated Mohan Das, Narayan Das, Har Govind, and others, stating the attack was due to a land dispute.

“These contradictions between the two dying declarations cast serious doubt on their reliability,” the bench remarked, referencing multiple Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the need for consistency in dying declarations.

The court further observed that the trial court had erroneously relied solely on the first dying declaration while disregarding the second. Additionally, the testimonies of eyewitnesses, particularly that of Naseeb Kaur, the deceased’s wife, were found to be inconsistent.

The judgment cited several Supreme Court cases, including Anmol Singh vs. State of M.P. and Lakhan Singh vs. State of M.P., underscoring the principle that in cases of multiple dying declarations with inconsistencies, the declaration recorded by a Magistrate holds greater weight, provided it is free from suspicion and corroborated by other evidence.

The court highlighted the necessity of a proper appreciation of evidence by appellate courts, quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna vs. State of Gujarat, which emphasized the duty of appellate courts to reappraise evidence independently.

“Given the clear contradictions in the dying declarations and the lack of corroborative evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained,” the judgment read.

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision to acquit Jeet Singh underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring convictions are based on reliable and consistent evidence. This ruling not only brings justice to the appellant but also sets a significant precedent for future cases involving contradictory dying declarations.

Date of Decision: July 25, 2024