Supreme Court on Evidentiary Value of Multiple Dying Declarations and Conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Headnote

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC, confirming the Gujarat High Court’s decision that reversed the trial court’s acquittal. The Court held that the first dying declaration made by the deceased before a doctor, being voluntary and reliable, carries high evidentiary value even if subsequent statements contain minor inconsistencies. It ruled that minor discrepancies cannot overshadow credible medical and circumstantial evidence supporting the prosecution case. The decision reaffirmed that when the trial court overlooks reliable evidence, the High Court is justified in setting aside an acquittal.

Background

• The appellant, Jemaben, was accused of conspiring with a co-accused to murder Leelaben by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze while she and her young son were asleep in their hut on the night of 29–30 November 2004.

• Leelaben sustained 100% burn injuries and died on 4 December 2004; her 4-year-old son suffered 10–12% burns.

• The Trial Court acquitted both accused, citing inconsistencies in three dying declarations made by the deceased.

• The State of Gujarat appealed, and the High Court convicted Jemaben under Section 302 IPC, relying on the first dying declaration and corroborating medical and forensic evidence.

Court’s Observations

• The deceased’s first statement to Dr. Shivrambhai Patel (PW-3) was consistent, voluntary, and made while she was conscious. She clearly identified her aunt-in-law, Jemaben, as the person who poured kerosene and set her on fire after she refused to accompany a man named Mania Dabhawala.

• The doctor’s medical certificate and the Yadi (police intimation) confirmed the deceased’s mental fitness and the authenticity of her statement.

• Physical evidence, including an empty kerosene container and soil soaked with kerosene, supported the prosecution’s version.

• The partial burns on the child and total burns on the deceased negated the theory of accidental fire.

• The Court held that minor inconsistencies in later dying declarations do not diminish the reliability of the first statement when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.

• The trial court erred in granting acquittal despite clear proof, and the High Court rightly reversed it.

Legal Provisions Discussed

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Punishment for murder.

• Sections 307, 436, 34, 120B, IPC – Attempt to murder, mischief by fire, common intention, and criminal conspiracy.

• Section 135, Bombay Police Act, 1951 – Offence relating to possession of prohibited articles.

• Doctrine on Multiple Dying Declarations – Each dying declaration must be independently evaluated for truthfulness and evidentiary worth.

• Precedent: Nallam Veera Stayanandam & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2004) 10 SCC 769 – Reliability of dying declarations upheld.

Outcome: Appeal dismissed; conviction and life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC confirmed.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1268

Case: Jemaben v. State of Gujarat

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal & Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025

Criminal Appeal No.: 1934 of 2017