-
by sayum
12 March 2026 6:43 AM
“A Dying Declaration Can Be The Sole Basis Of Conviction — But Only When It Inspires Full Confidence Of The Court”, In an important ruling clarifying the evidentiary value of dying declarations, the Supreme Court of India reiterated that although a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, courts must exercise great caution where surrounding circumstances create suspicion about its voluntariness or authenticity.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, decided on 11 March 2026, held that multiple dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution did not inspire confidence and therefore could not sustain a conviction. The Court ultimately affirmed the acquittal of the accused.
The Court emphasized that:
“A dying declaration is a very important species of evidence capable of proving the crime proper and identifying the accused… However, the Court must be satisfied that it is made without prompting, tutoring or coercion.”
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic fire incident in a village in Bihar on 23 November 2016, where Sarangdhar Singh and his wife Kamala Devi suffered severe burn injuries after their hut caught fire. Sarangdhar Singh died immediately while Kamala Devi succumbed to injuries two days later.
The prosecution alleged that the younger son of the couple and his wife had deliberately set the hut on fire due to a property dispute, thereby committing parricide.
The Trial Court convicted the accused, primarily relying on two written dying declarations and several oral declarations allegedly made by the deceased. However, the Patna High Court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was unreliable.
The elder son of the deceased approached the Supreme Court challenging the acquittal, arguing that the dying declarations were sufficient to sustain conviction.
Legal Position On Dying Declarations
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the law governing dying declarations under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, referring to leading precedents including Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi, Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra.
The Court reiterated that a dying declaration is a recognized exception to the rule against hearsay, based on the principle that a person on the verge of death is unlikely to lie.
However, the Court cautioned that courts must carefully examine the reliability of such statements.
Summarizing the settled legal principles, the Court observed:
“A dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court.”
The Court further clarified that medical certification of the mental fitness of the declarant is not an absolute requirement, though it may strengthen the reliability of the statement.
When Courts Must Be Cautious
The judgment emphasized that courts must be vigilant where circumstances create suspicion about the dying declaration.
The Bench observed that if the declaration appears doubtful or suspicious, the court should insist on corroboration before relying upon it.
The Court stated:
“If there is an iota of suspicion, the Court has to look for corroboration.”
Certain factors were highlighted as relevant in assessing reliability, including whether the declaration was recorded in the presence of a doctor, whether independent witnesses were present, and whether the circumstances suggest tutoring or prompting by interested parties.
Multiple Dying Declarations Must Inspire Confidence
The case involved two written dying declarations and several alleged oral declarations.
The Supreme Court clarified that the number of dying declarations is not decisive — the crucial question is whether they are reliable and consistent.
The Court explained:
“It is not the plurality of dying declarations that matter, but the reliability.”
Where inconsistencies arise, courts must carefully scrutinize whether they are material contradictions affecting the truthfulness of the statement.
Why The Dying Declarations In This Case Were Rejected
Applying the above principles, the Court found that the dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution suffered from serious infirmities.
The first written declaration (FIS) was recorded in the hospital without medical certification, despite the victim suffering extensive burns. The statement contained a long narrative of family disputes, which the Court found improbable under the circumstances.
The second declaration, recorded by an Executive Magistrate, was also surrounded by suspicious circumstances. There were conflicting testimonies regarding who actually recorded the statement, and again no medical certification of the victim’s mental condition.
In addition, the statements were recorded in the presence of villagers and relatives, creating the possibility of tutoring.
The Court therefore held that the written declarations did not inspire confidence.
Oral Dying Declarations Also Unreliable
Several witnesses claimed that the deceased made oral statements implicating the accused immediately after the incident.
However, the Supreme Court found these testimonies inconsistent and unreliable, particularly because the witnesses were closely related to the deceased and allegedly involved in a property dispute with the accused.
Moreover, independent witnesses who first noticed the fire were not examined, which further weakened the prosecution case.
Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal
In view of the suspicious dying declarations, lack of independent witnesses, and defective investigation, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court therefore upheld the High Court’s acquittal of the accused and dismissed the appeal.
At the same time, the Court reiterated a key principle governing criminal trials:
“Criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt and not on conjectures, suspicion or perceived motive.”
Date of Decision: 11 March 2026
