Multiple Dying Declaration Cases: Supreme Court defines certain principles to consider

While hearing the Abhishek Sharma vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) case on October 18, 2023, the Supreme Court of India laid down certain principles for a court to consider when dealing with a case involving multiple dying declarations. The matter was heard by a two-judge bench including Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Abhay S. Oka. These principles were highlighted by the Supreme Court after addressing various principles of law laid down by this court regarding matters related to multiple dying declarations. The principles to be followed in multiple dying declaration cases are mentioned below:

• “The primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in a fit state of mind.
• All dying declarations should be consistent. In other words, inconsistencies between such statements should be 'material' for its credibility to be shaken.
• When inconsistencies are found between various dying declarations, other evidence available on record may be considered for the purposes of corroboration of the contents of dying declarations.
• The statement treated as a dying declaration must be interpreted in light of surrounding facts and circumstances.
• Each declaration must be scrutinized on its own merits. The court has to examine upon which of the statements reliance can be placed in order for the case to proceed further.
• When there are inconsistencies, the statement that has been recorded by a Magistrate or like higher officer can be relied on, subject to the indispensable qualities of truthfulness and being free of suspicion.
• In the presence of inconsistencies, the medical fitness of the person making such declaration, at the relevant time, assumes importance along with other factors such as the possibility of tutoring by relatives, etc.”

Along with this, the Supreme Court bench also highlighted certain judgments where the extent of burn injuries sustained by the deceased were addressed. In context with the present case where the appellant was accused of murdering his colleague, the bench observed that “Considering the aforementioned factors, placing the gauntlet of guilt upon the convict-appellant based on dying declarations when no other material particulars, apart from his name, could be elicited therefrom would be unjustified. Furthermore, when considering other circumstances that may or may not point to the guilt of the convict-appellant, as discussed above, we find gaps unexplained in the prosecution case, which cast sufficient doubt as to leave the case short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.” Further, the Supreme Court bench granted bail to the convict-appellant (Abhishek Sharma).