Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: July 28, 2022 at 20:43 IST
The Gujarat High Court has made clear that a dying declaration cannot be deemed inadmissible just because it was made orally.
According to a Single Bench of Dr. Justice Ashokkumar Joshi, an “oral dying declaration” made by the deceased that is not controverted by the defence during cross-examination is admissible as evidence.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the State’s appeal and overturned the Sessions Court’s decision acquitting the deceased’s husband and in-laws of abetting her suicide by harassing her for dowry.
Three years after their marriage, according to the FIR, the complainant received a telephonic information that his sister had burn injuries and was being taken to the hospital.
He stated to have stopped the said car and found his burned sister laying in the middle seat. He further claimed that she told him that she had set herself on fire as a result of harassment from her husband and in-laws over dowry demands.
The trial court had not believed the complainant’s allegations while acquitted the accused. Keeping these facts in mind, the Single Judge remarked:
“It is the cardinal principle of law that whenever the facts deposed by any witness/es in the examination-in-chief remain uncontested/uncontroverted by the defence, in such circumstance, the evidence adduced before the Court is believable and admissible in evidence.”
In the instant case, the oral dying declaration by the victim was not Controverted by the defence and therefore, it was held to be admissible.
In its appeal, the APP cited Section 113A of the Evidence Act to make the case that if a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and had previously accused her husband of cruelty, the in-laws then there is a presumption against them.
The victim’s oral declaration in the present instance was not controverted by the defence, and as a result, it was deemed admissible.
The High Court sentenced the victim’s husband to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 306 IPC, therefore reaffirming the significance of a reliable oral dying declaration. The mother-in-law and father-in-law were each given a one-year sentence of simple imprisonment.
The Court concluded by saying “In the case on hand, the complainant in his complaint as well as in his examination-in-chief on oath has deposed the fact with regard to the oral dying declaration given by the deceased, however, the same is not controverted by the defence in cross-examination and therefore, it is admissible in evidence.”