Cross-check dying declaration 8212; SC

It further said: 8220;If, in the facts and circumstances of a case, it is found that the maker of the statement was in a fit state of mind and had voluntarily made the statement on the basis of personal knowledge, without being influenced by others and the court 8212; on strict scrutiny 8212; finds it to be reliable, there is no rule of law or even of prudence that such a reliable piece of evidence cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated.8221;

A dying declaration is an independent piece of evidence like any other piece of evidence 8212; neitherextra strong nor weak 8212; and can be acted upon without corroboration if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable, the court observed.

The ruling was handed down by a Division Bench comprising Justices K T Thomas and D P Wadhwa while letting off an accused charged with the murder of his young wife by setting her on fire.

The relationship between Jai Karan and his wife, Wanti Devi was not cordial. She had filed a claim for maintenance from her husband but had withdrawn the case after friends and relatives intervened and persuaded the couple to patch up. Wanti Devi then returned to live with her husband.

Eight months later, on September 25, 1990, Wanti Devi was admitted to the Jai Prakash Narain Hospital with extensive burn injuries and died the same day. Before her death, she allegedly told a doctor that her husband had burnt her by pouring kerosene on her after they had a fight.

The prosecution case was based on her dying declaration and an Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi held Jai Karan guiltyof the charge of murdering his wife and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This was confirmed by the Delhi High Court.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the prosecution evidence rested solely on the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased to a doctor of the hospital because the parents, relatives and neighours did not support its case.

The document containing the dying declaration clearly brings out that an endorsement had been made by Dr Rajendra Prasad Singh at 1.10 am that Wanti Devi was not in a fit condition to make a statement. This endorsement also gains support from the evidence of the police officer who stated that when he reached the hospital after receiving information about the incident, he was told that Wanti Devi was in no condition to make any statement. He had returned without recording it, the court noted.

From the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the evidence on record, the court further noted that it was difficult to rely on the alleged dyingdeclaration as the sole basis for conviction.