STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus YUSUF

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 1138 · Decided: 27-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1138 
"'I 
A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
YUSUF 
(Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2003) 
B 
APRIL 27, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
•• 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Conviction by trial court 
c relying on dying declaration - High Court found that dying 
declaration was not reliable and directed acquittal - Appeal 
against acquittal - Held: No case made out for interference 
- The finding of High Court that dying declaration was not 
truthful and there was attempt to falsely implicate the accused 
D was borne out by various statement in the dying declaration 
which were proved beyond doubt to be false - Order of High 
Court cannot be faulted - Moreover, in case of acquittal, there 
is doub(e presumption in favour of accused - If two 
reasonable conclusions were possible on the basis of 
E evidence, appellate court should not disturbed the findings of 
acquittal recorded by court below - Evidence - Dying 
declaration - Appeal against acquittal. 
r 
The trial Court relied upon the dying declaration and 
F 
held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under 
s.302 IPC. On appeal, High Court found that the dying 
declaration was not reliable and directed acquittal. Hence 
the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
~ 
HELD: 1.1. This is a case where the basis of 
conviction of the accused is the dying declaration. The 
situation in which a person is on the deathbed is so 
solemn and serene that the grave position in which he 
H 
1138 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. YUSUF 
1139 
"( 
is placed, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of A 
" 
his statement. It is for this reason that the requirements 
of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. 
Besides, should the dying declaration be excluded, it will 
result in the miscarriage of justice because the victim 
being generally the only eyewitness in a serious crime, 
B 
the exclusion of the statement would leave the court 
.. • 
without a scrap of evidence. [Para 5] [1147-C-E] 
1.2. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great 
weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no c 
power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential 
for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. 
This is the reason the court also insists that the dying 
declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full 
confidence of the court in its correctness. The court has 
to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was 
D 
not as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product 
of imagination. The court must be further satisfied that the 
deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear 
opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once 
the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and 
E 
voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction on the 
same without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid 
l' 
down as an absolute rule of law that the dying 
declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction 
unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration 
F 
is merely a rule of prudence. [Para 6] [1147-E-H; 1148-A] 
Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474; Munnu 
Raja v. State of M.P. (1976) 3 SCC 104; State of U.P. v. Ram 
• 
Sagar Yadav (1985(1) SCC 552; Ramawati Devi v. State of G 
Bihar 1983) 1 SCC 211; K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public 
Prosecutor (1976(3) SCC 618; Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. 
(1974) 4 SCC 264; Kake Singh v. State of M.P. (1981) Supp. 
SCC 25; Ram Manorath v. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 654; 
H 
1140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. 
'( 
State of Maharashtra v. KrishnamurtiLaxmipati Naidu (1980) 
'f 
A 
Supp. SCC 455; Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar (1980 
;. 
Supp.sec 769; Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P. (1988) Supp. 
SCC 152; State of UP. v. Madan Mohan (1989) 3 SCC 390 
and Mohan/al Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra 
B (1982) 1 sec 700, relied on. 
1.3. The dying declaration is only a piece of untested 
evidence and must, like any other evidence, satisfy the 
.. 
.. 
court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and 
c 
that it is absolutely safe to act upon it. If after careful 
scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from 
any effort to induce the deceased to make a false 
statem~nt and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall 
be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, 
even if there is no corroboration. [Para 7] [1149-F-H; 1150-
D A] 
Gangotri Singh v. State of UP. (1993) Supp 1 SCC 327, 
relied on. 
1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.