Dying Declaration can be acted upon without any corroboration when the court feels convinced about its trustworthiness: Allahabad High Court
“Dying declaration” must be a statement made by a deceased person who would otherwise have been a credible witness to their own death by murder or manslaughter, and was of “settled hopeless expectation of death.
In case CRIMINAL MISC BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2020 IN RE., Smt. Babli and 2 others vs the State of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 1397 of 2020) and CRIMINAL MISC BAIL APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2020 IN RE., Kamal vs the State of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 388 of 2020), High Court of Allahabad learned bench led by HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.Amit Sthalekar, JUSTICE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV (Per. JUSTICE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV) held that Dying Declaration can be acted upon without any corroboration when the court feels convinced about its trustworthiness.
The appellants have filed a Criminal Appeal and Kamal has filed a Criminal Appeal against the order, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, and Sessions Trial arising out of the case where all the appellants, Vimla, Babli, Kamal, and Jaiprakash, have been convicted u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine. Except for Kamal, all of the appellants have been convicted under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years in prison and a fine with a default stipulation. Furthermore, with the exception of Kamal, all of the appellants have been convicted under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
During the pendency of their appeals before this Court, the appellants prayed for their release on bail by filing separate bail applications.
FACTS OF THE CASE: The case was lodged alleging that the marriage of the first informant’s niece was solemnized with accused Raju. Raju, his mother and father, sister, and his friend were torturing and harassing the niece for bringing less dowry and for not giving vehicle in the marriage, and because of these torturous acts, a case of dowry was registered. It is further alleged that the appellants took the niece to her matrimonial home, where she has been continuously harassed and maltreated again. Further, it was alleged that the informants were in the arrangement of the vehicle to pacify their demands but the appellants set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil with the intention to kill her and when the informant and his family members got the information that his niece has been burnt, they rushed to the District Hospital, where she was hospitalized.
It is further alleged that the niece was referred to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital. During treatment, she expired. An inquest on her dead body was conducted and the body was sent for postmortem. As per the postmortem report, the deceased suffered about 95 % burn injury and she died because of septicaemic shock as a result of flame burns.
JUDGEMENT: Hon’ble Court after taking into consideration the gravity of the offense, quantum of punishment, and the manner in which the appellants are involved in the offense, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favor of the appellants. Their prayer for bail is rejected.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY RIYA DWIVEDI