New Delhi, July 14
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the whole idea of accepting a statement in the name of a pre-death declaration is that a person will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.
The top court said that it is believed that when a person is on the verge of death and when every hope of this world is lost, he gives away every motive of falsehood.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision upholding the trial court’s decision to convict the two murder accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
The bench said, “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that there is no good reason to interfere with the present appeal. We do not find any fundamental or fundamental defect in the impugned judgment of the High Court going to the root of the matter seeking any intervention by this Court.”
It upheld the conviction and sentence of Kamal Khudal after relying on the oral death declaration given by the deceased and medical evidence supporting the statement of the deceased.
“The whole idea of accepting a confession in the name of the Declaration of Death comes from a proverb ‘Nemo Moriturus Prasumitur Mentor’, which means that a man will not meet his Creator with a lie in his mouth. It is believed that when A person is on the verge of death and when every hope of this world is lost, he casts away every motive of falsehood,” Justice Pardiwala said in his judgment on behalf of the bench.
The apex court said that the law regarding the nature, scope and value of evidence in the form of oral and written declarations before death is now largely settled by various judicial decisions of this court.
“Before relying on an oral or written declaration, one must pass the test of credibility as it is a statement made in the absence of the accused and the accused has no opportunity to set it on fire. Therefore, the court has to subject it to close scrutiny. But once the court is satisfied that it is a true version of the circumstances in which the death occurred and the people injured, the law does not expect it to That there should be confirmation before relying on it,” it said.
The bench said that if there are any lapses and the court does not find it safe to draw any conclusion thereon without some further evidence to support the same, then the question of confirmation arises.
It is noted that the oral evidence of the prosecution witness is quite natural as on the day of the incident, he was working in his agricultural field and his presence in his field can be said to be natural.
It said that there is no good reason for the prosecution witness to appear in the trial court and give false statement against the accused persons. He, along with other co-accused and, therefore, fabricated the whole story of a verbal death declaration.
It said that the oral declaration of death of the deceased before the prosecution witness is corroborated with the medical evidence on record.
“The medical evidence on record shows that the deceased had 75 per cent burn wounds on his chest. The deceased suffered burn injuries as the accused are said to have ingested garam lali (raw material used for preparing liquor), it said.
The bench also took note of the fact that Khudaal was arrested on July 23, 2007, that is, about eight days after the date of the incident.
“He was absconding. He was not available at his residence. The appellant-accused in his further statement recorded under section 313 of CrPC has not stated that he made the arrest between July 15, 2007 and July 23, 2007, i.e. Where was it till date. This is an objectionable position to each other and if the other circumstances on record are taken into account, it will have some relevance while deciding the offense of the accused.”
The bench said, “It appears to be a case of a sudden fight. This may be due to some verbal dispute between the deceased and the accused persons while they were inside the liquor factory. ,
According to the FIR, on July 15, 2007, at around 7 am, Khudaal along with co-accused (Munna Bhoi) came to the house of the deceased (Uttam Dutta).
The accused persons took the deceased with them for planting paddy and till late evening when the deceased did not return to his house.
According to the prosecution, the deceased after working for some time in the paddy field accompanied the accused persons to the liquor factory where something went wrong while the accused persons and the deceased were in the liquor factory.
After some time, locals saw the deceased coming out of the factory with burn marks on the body, and prosecution witnesses, who were present in a nearby agricultural area, questioned the deceased as to what had happened.
The deceased is said to have informed him that the accused persons had poured garam lali (raw material used for making local liquor) on his body, as a result of which he was burnt.
Saying this the deceased left from there and after that his body was recovered from the drain of Duribam Tea Estate.