An oral declaration of death given to close relatives requires careful evaluation before it can be used to convict an accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that where a conviction was based on an oral statement made by the deceased to a close relative, the court must exercise due caution in believing the close relative’s testimony in order to convict the accused.

A bench consisting of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia heard a case in which the prosecutor’s office tried to prove the defendant’s guilt based on the deceased’s oral statement given to her mother. The trial court convicted the defendant in the murder case based on the testimony of the deceased’s mother, in which she testified that her son (deceased) had made an oral declaration of death, giving the names of the defendants.

However, the conviction was quashed by the High Court after noting a significant discrepancy in the deceased mother’s story because the mother, who was an informant in the case, had not corroborated anything in her statements under Article 161 Cr.PC relating to the declaration of death made to her by her son. However, during the trial she testified in court that the deceased had given her an oral declaration of death.

Confirming the findings of the Supreme Court, the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar noticed that:

“Through the testimony of PW8, the mother of the deceased, who is also an informant, the prosecution attempted to establish the existence of an oral death declaration. It is important to note that a declaration of death is not in itself a strong piece of evidence and therefore, in the case of an oral declaration made allegedly to a close relative (in this case the mother), the mother’s evidence of an oral death declaration should be treated with care and caution.”

The Court said that while an FIR is not intended to be an encyclopedia chronicling all the intricate and minute details, it can be used to corroborate its creator under Art. 157 of the Evidence Act or to deny its creator, i.e. the informant, in accordance with Art. 145 of the Evidence Act, in order to determine whether he is a trustworthy witness or not.

“The undisputed and undeniable position obtained from the evidence on record is that the defense has argued that neither in Ext. P12 FIR nor in Ext. The statement of D3 PW8 (deceased mother) recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC, PW8 stated the oral declaration of death made to her by the deceased. Further, the prosecution has not established that when PW8 reached the scene of occurrence, the deceased was in the mental state to be able to speak or converse in an appropriate manner. Apart from the statement of PW8 before the Tribunal, there is no evidence in this regard in the case under consideration. There is no doubt that an oral declaration of death should be of such a nature as to give the court full confidence in its correctness. In the contextual situation disclosed as above, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was fully justified in considering the oral evidence of PW8 and the grave negligence on her part while confronting Ext. P12 FIR and Ext. D3, which is her earlier statement to the police that she did not mention anything about the oral declaration of death given by her deceased son“– said the court.

Thus, considering the eyewitness (hearsay) evidence of the deceased mother (PW 8) to be unreliable and untrustworthy, the court gave the accused the benefit of the doubt.

Accordingly, the State’s appeal against the defendant’s acquittal was dismissed.

Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramjan Khan and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 844