Dying declaration backed by medical, forensic, and eyewitness evidence can nail the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt:  Calcutta High Court

“A dying declaration is admissible not because it is made on oath or before a magistrate, but because the person making it is at the point of death and has no motive to lie” – Calcutta High Court reaffirms the sanctity of Section 32 Evidence Act. The Court upheld the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration made by the victim China Deshmukh, who named both appellants, Dilip Dey @ Dila and Manoj Singh @ Mota Manoj, as his assailants. The statement was recorded by a police officer at SSKM Hospital in the presence of an attending doctor and close relatives. The defence argued that there was no express certificate of mental fitness. The Court rejected this objection, observing: “Medical testimony and circumstances sufficiently indicate that the victim was conscious and aware at the time of the statement.”

Citing the testimonies of PW9 and PW24, both of whom were present during the declaration, the Bench held: “The consistent narrative of events and injuries described by the deceased aligns seamlessly with the medical and post-mortem reports. There is no reason to doubt the voluntariness or authenticity of the statement.”

“The Gun That Spoke: Ballistics Don’t Lie When Witnesses Falter”

“The firearm recovered on the confession of the accused, matched with the bullet retrieved from the victim’s body — science becomes the silent witness.”

When the credibility of witnesses is under attack, forensic evidence must bridge the gap. Here, the firearm recovered on the basis of a disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by accused Manoj Singh proved to be crucial. A forensic expert (PW22) confirmed that the bullet extracted from the body was fired from the same improvised pistol recovered from the bush where Singh had concealed it.

The Court observed: “The physical evidence conclusively links the recovered weapon to the fatal shot. The chain of custody, ballistic matching, and voluntary disclosure collectively confirm the involvement of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”

“Even Hostile Witnesses Can Whisper the Truth: Partial Credibility Still Counts”

“The truth survives even if a witness retreats — a hostile witness is not a helpless one.”

PW16, a friend who accompanied the victim to the cinema, turned hostile at trial. But he admitted being present at the scene, taking the victim to the hospital, and confirmed that the victim was conscious and speaking. Though he refused to identify the assailants in court, his testimony supported the prosecution’s timeline and circumstances of the incident.

The Court held: “A witness need not be entirely reliable to be relevant. Where parts of a hostile witness’s version are independently corroborated, they retain evidentiary value.”

The Bench reaffirmed that a hostile tag does not result in wholesale rejection: “The partial truth is enough when it strengthens the total narrative.”

“No FIR, No Problem? Not When the FIR Itself Springs from the Victim’s Lips”

“When the dying man names his killers and that very statement forms the FIR — the law doesn’t look for formalities, it listens for the truth.”

The First Information Report in this case was not a third-party complaint but stemmed directly from the dying declaration. The police officer (PW24) recorded the statement at the hospital in presence of a doctor and relatives. That statement was treated as the FIR.

The Court held: “When the FIR is based on the dying declaration recorded immediately and in the presence of competent persons, its evidentiary value is reinforced, not diminished.”

The Court dismissed the defence’s challenge to the FIR’s legitimacy, stating: “Technical objections must yield to substantive truth when life has been lost and death has spoken clearly.”

“A Scene Lit in Mercury Light: Eyewitnesses Map the Movement, Motive and Method”

“The crime didn’t happen in darkness — it happened under a working streetlight, in full public view, with a motive as old as enmity.”

Multiple witnesses testified to the presence of the accused near the crime scene. PW5 and PW7 saw the accused shortly before the shooting. PW13 saw them disembark from a taxi outside the cinema. PW14 witnessed the aftermath and spoke to the bleeding victim, who named his shooters. The spot was well-lit by a mercury lamp.

The Court noted: “The place of occurrence was not cloaked in anonymity — the accused were seen approaching and fleeing. Their presence, corroborated by multiple sources, is neither accidental nor coincidental.”

Further, the prosecution established a clear motive — previous threats by the accused were known to the victim’s brothers. The Bench observed: “Where there is prior hostility, premeditated action, and post-crime concealment, the chain of events completes itself.”

“Medical Evidence as the Final Nail: When the Body Confirms the Story”

“Gunshot wounds with scorching and tattooing. Bruises from being chased and caught. The corpse does not lie.”

The post-mortem confirmed gunshot wounds to the upper arm and abdomen — the exact spots mentioned in the victim’s dying statement. The injuries were consistent with close-range firing and were described with clinical precision by PW19, the autopsy surgeon. Additional abrasions and bruises supported the narrative that the victim was chased before being shot.

The Court observed: “Medical findings mirror the spoken account — and when the dead affirm the dying, the law has no hesitation in believing them.”

“Judicial Verdict: Truth Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

After examining 24 prosecution witnesses, forensic records, the weapon recovery, and medical testimony, the Division Bench concluded:

“The chain of evidence — beginning from the dying declaration to the firearm recovery and forensic match — is unbroken, unshaken, and unquestionable.”

The Court found the trial court's conviction unimpeachable and held: “We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The same stands affirmed.”

The appeals were dismissed. The life sentences were upheld. Time already spent in custody was directed to be set off under Section 428 CrPC.

A Murder That Spoke for Itself — Through Words, Wounds and Weapons

In the end, the judgment stands as a powerful reminder that even when witnesses retreat and formalities falter, truth survives — in statements recorded at the threshold of death, in bullets matched to barrels, and in the bruises borne by the body of the fallen.

"When a dying man identifies his killer, and science proves his story, justice needs no second opinion."

Date of decision: 24/09/2025