Conviction can be sustained if victim’s dying declarations are consistent: HC

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court had ruled that insofar as the multiple dying declarations are concerned, if the statements are consistent throughout, then a conviction can be sustained on the basis of the dying declaration without looking for corroboration.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh held the above ruling on dismissing a criminal appeal preferred by a man. The appellant was convicted to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with Rs 5,000 penalty as well as a two-year jail term to run concurrently.

The man was convicted by Mahila Court, Chengalpattu on charges of causing the suicide of his wife on June 3, 2008. The police had booked him under Section 306 (punishment for the abetment of suicide) and Section 498-A (punishment for subjecting the women to cruelty).

The convict’s advocate argued that his client was convicted solely on the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased without any material corroboration.

“..the dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration, more particularly, where it suffers from infirmity,” the appellant’s lawyer submitted.

However, the judge pointed out that the victim who immolated herself had given three dying declarations to the doctor who treated her at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Sub-Inspector, Chrompet Police Station who investigated the case and before the judicial magistrate, Egmore.

According to the judge, in her statements, the victim had consciously stated that she self-immolated due to the torture of her husband, and his parent.

“There are three dying declarations and all these dying declarations were recorded after ascertaining the mental status of the deceased to give a statement by due certification given by the doctor,” the judge held, adding, all three statements are consistent and against the appellant.

The court dismissed the appeal and Justice Anand Venkatesh added that the trial Judge has carefully assessed the evidence and had come to the correct conclusion that the offense under Sections 498(a) and 306 of IPC has been made out against the appellant.