HIRAMANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                   [2013) 3 S.C.R. 119


                         HI RAMAN                             A
                             v.
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2008)
                    JANUARY 31, 2013
                                                               B
        [A.K. PATNAIK AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

      Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32 - Relevance of dying
declarations - Approach to be adopted by the Courts with
respect thereto - Held: By enacting s.32(1) in the Evidence C
Act, the legislature has accorded a special sanctity to the
statement made by a dying person as to the cause of his own
death - This is by virtue of the solemn occasion when such
statement is made - Besides, when such statement is made
at the earliest opportunity without any influence being brought D
on the dying person, there is absolutely no reason to take any
other view for the cause of his or her death - Absence of any
corroboration cannot take away its relevance - Exaggerated
doubts, on account of absence of corroboration, will only lead
 to unmerited acquittals, causing grave harm to the cause of E
justice and ultimately to the social fabric - On facts, the dying
declarations of the appellant's wife gave the real cause of her
burn injuries - The victim having suffered 91% burn injuries,
 there was hardly any time to secure the presence of competent
magistrate or to record her statement in a detailed question- F
 answer form - Absence of these factors itself did not take away
 the evidentiary value of the recorded statement - There were
 two dying declarations recorded at the earliest opportunity -
 They contained the motive for the crime, and the reasons as
 to why the deceased suffered the burn injuries viz., the greed G
 of the appellant to which the deceased had refused to
 succumb - As far as her statements viz., that the appellant
had poured kerosene and set her on fire is concerned, there
is no reason to discard it considering the fact that it was made
                            119                                H
    120       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A at the earliest opportunity and on a solemn occasion - The
    defence put up a story which was totally inconsistent with the
    facts on record, and is a clear afterthought and therefore
    unacceptable - The prosecution proved its case beyond any
    reasonable doubt.
B
       The appellant's wife died an unnatural death, having
  suffered 91 % burn injuries. The trial court held the
  appellant responsible for the same, principally on the
  basis of her dying declarations, and convicted him for
  cruelty and murder under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC.
C The conviction u/s 302 of IPC was confirmed by the High
  Court in Criminal Appeal, though the one under Section
  498-A of IPC was set-aside for the lack of sufficient
  evidence. The Courts below accepted the two dying
  declarations of deceased 'C' as giving the correct cause
D for the burn injuries viz. that they were caused by tha
  appellant. They rejected the defence of the appellant that
  he was nowhere near the deceased at the time of the
  incident and that he was not responsible for the same.
  The judgment of the High Court was challenged before
E this Court for being rendered solely on the basis of dying
  declarations.

       The instant appeal thus raises question about the
  relevance of dying declarations, and the approach to be
F adopted by the Courts with respect thereto.
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1. The dying declarations of the appellant's
  wife gave the real cause of her burn injuries. The victim
G 'C' having suffered 91 % burn injuries, there was hardly
  any time to secure the presence of competent magistrate
  or to rEcord her statement in a detailed question-answer
  form. Absence of these factors itself will not take away
  the evidentiary value of the recorded statement. [Para 8]
H [131-F-G]
      HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                121

     1.2. By enacting Section 32 (1) in the Evidence Act, A
1872, the legislature has accorded a special sanctity to
the statement made by a dying person as to the cause
of his own death. This is by virtue of the solemn occasion
when the statement is made. Besides, when the
statement is made at the earliest opportunity without any B
influence being brought on the dying person, there is
absolutely no reason to take any other view for the cause
of his or her death. The statement has to be accepted
as the relevant and truthful one, revealing the
circumstances which resulted into his death. Absence c
of any corroboration can not take away its relevance.
Exaggerated doubts, on account of absence of
corroboration, will only lead to unmerited acquittals,
causing grave harm to the cause of justice and ultimately
to the social fabric. With the incidents of wives being set 0
on fire, very unfortunately continuing to occur in our
society, it is expected from the Courts that they approach
such situations very carefully, giving due respect to the
dying declarations, and not being swayed by fanciful
doubts. [Para 17] [138-G-H; 139-A-C]
                                                           .
                                                            E
     1.3. In the present case there are two dying
declarations recorded at the earliest opportunity. They
contained the motive for the crime, and the reasons as
to why the deceased suffered the burn injuries viz., the
greed of the appellant to which the deceased had refused F
to succumb. As far as her statements viz., that the
appellant had poured kerosene and set her on fire is
concerned, there is no reason to discard it considering
the fact that it was made at the earliest opportunity and
on a solemn occasion. The defence put up a story which G
is totally inconsistent with the facts which have come on
record, and is a clear afterthought and therefore
unacceptable. In fact this case clearly shows an attempt
to put up a totally false defence. The prosecution has
undoubtedly proved its case beyond any reasonable H
    122       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A   doubt. [Para 18] [139-D-F]

        1.4. In view of the above legal position and facts on
    record, there is no reason to interfere in the judgment and
    order rendered by the trial court as modified and
    confirmed by the High Court. [Para 19] [139-G]
8
       Khushal Rao Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22:
  1958 SCR 552; Mannu Raja Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
  1976 (3) SCC 104: 1976 (2) SCR 764; Gu/am Hussain Vs.
  State of Delhi 2000 (7) SCC 254: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 141;
C Kanaksingh Raisingh Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 691;
  Babu Lal Vs. State of State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2004 SC
  846: 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 54; Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs.
  State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 2622:1974 (1) SCR489;
  State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal AIR 1988 SC 2154: 1988 (2)
D Suppl. SCR 391; Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh AIR
  1990 SC 209: 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 292; Gangadhar Behera
  Vs. State of Orissa AIR 2002 SC 3633; Sucha Singh Vs. State
  of Punjab 2003 (7) SCC 643: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 35;
  Lakhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (8) SCC 514:
E 2010 (9) SCR 705 - relied on.

          P. Mani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2006 (3) SCC 161:
    2006 (2 ) SCR 486 - referred to.

                         Case Law Reference:
F
          2006 (2) SCR 486          referred to        Para 7

          1958 SCR 552              relied on          Para 7
          1976 (2) SCR 764          relied on          Para 10
G         2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 141   relied on          Para 11
          AIR 2003 SC 691           relied on          Para 12
          2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 54    relied on          Para 12

H         1974 (1) SCR 489          relied on          Para 13
       HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                    123


    1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 391       relied on         Para 14       A.

    1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 292 relied on               Para 15

    AIR 2002 SC 3633              relied on         Para 16
    2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 35        relied on         Para 16       B
    2010 (9) SCR 705              relied on         Para 16

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1288 of 2008.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.06.2005 of the High        C
Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2005.

    Javed Mahmud Rao for the Appellant.
                                                                  D
    Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     H.L. GOKHALE J. 1. This Criminal Appeal raises the
question about the relevance of dying declarations, and the       E
approach to be adopted by the Courts with respect thereto. The
appellant's wife, Chandrakala Hiraman Murkute, died an
unnatural and a very painful death at about 2 a.m. on 7.4.2000
in a village in Jamkhed Taluka of District Ahmednagar, State
of Maharashtra, having suffered 91 % burn injuries in the         F
previous night leading to cardio-respiratory failure. The First
Adhoc Addi. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar held the appellant
responsible for the same, principally on the basis of her dying
declarations, and convicted him for cruelty and murder under
Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (1.P.C. for       G
short) by his judgment and order dated 16.8.2004 in Sessions
Case No.103 of 2000. The conviction U/s 302 of IPC was
confirmed by the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2005, though
the one under Section 498-A of l.P.C was set-aside for the lack   H
    124       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 3 S.C.R.


A of sufficient evidence. The Courts below have accepted the
  two dying declarations of deceased Chandrakala as giving the
  correct cause for the burn injuries viz. that they were caused
  by the appellant. They have rejected the defence of the
  appellant that he was nowhere near the deceased at the time
B of the incident and that he was not responsible for the same.
  In view of this conviction under Section 302 l.P.C., the appellant
  is required to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine
  of Rs.500/-, in default suffer a rigorous imprisonment for three
  months. This judgment of the High Court dated 28.6.2005 in
c Crl. Appeal No. 31/2005 is being challenged for being rendered
  solely on the basis of dying declarations.

    The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:-

       2. Deceased Chandrakala had been married to the
D appellant since a long time, and had three children from the
  marriage viz., Bapu, aged about 20-22 years and married at
  the time of the incident, Ramesh aged about 14 years, and
  daughter Shobha (whose age has not been mentioned). As
  per the charge-sheet, the appellant is stated to have poured
E kerosene on Chandrakala and set her on fire at about 8 p.m.
  on 6.4.2000. She was admitted in the rural hospital, Jamkhed
  immediately at 9:15 p.m. One Dr. Eknath Mundhe (PW-5) was
  on duty at that time, and he recorded the history of injuries
  (exhibit 33) at about the same time in the following words -
F         "H/o Homicidal bums by husband as she was not willing
          to perform his marriage with her sister and he was a/so
          demanding gold on 6.4.2000 at about 8 p.m. •
      Thus as per this writing, the appellant was insisting that
G Chandrakala bring gold from her parents, and that he be
  permitted to marry her sister. Chandrakala refused to
  acquiesce to either of these demands, and, therefore, she was
  given.serious burn injuries by the appellant on that fateful night.
  According to their younger son Ramesh (DW-1) the deceased
H was taken to the hospital by her family members. That being
        HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                          125
                [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

 so; this recording by the doctor assumes significance since it          A
 m4st have been made in their presence. After Head Constable
 Dagadu Baba Kharat (PW-4) came for duty to that hospital, the
'above duty doctor informed him about the incident, and also
 that Chandrakala was still in a position to make a statement.
 PW-4 recorded the second statement of Chandrakala (exhibit              B
 28) in the presence of PW-5 and the staff nurse after PW-5
 certified that she was in a position to give a statement.
 Chandrakala stated that the appellant poured kerosene on her
 from a ten lit!':!r drum, and then set her on fire sine~ she declined
 to accept his demand of a golden ring of one tola, and transfer         c
 of the land belonging to her maternal uncle to him. According
 to this statement one neighbour Baba Saheb Vitekar had
 extinguished the fire, and then she was brought to the hospital.
 Thereafter, her thumb impression was obtained on the
 statement after reading it to her. This second dying declaration        D
 was treated as the First Information Report (F.l.R.) and was
 registered at 10:10 p.m. as Crime No. 44/2000 under Section
 307 1.P.C. for attempt to murder. Chandrakala was very much·
 in a position to make a statement at that time, and was not
 under the influence of any drug since she was injected with
 sedatives only at about 10:30 p.m. At the time of recording of          E
 this statement her two sons as well as the appellant were
 present since, as stated by Ramesh (DW-1), all the family
 members had taken her to the hospital. The Appellant has also
 stated in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C that he too
 had gone to the hospital. Mother and brother of Chandrakala             F
 were however not present at that time as they could reach the
 hospital only after she had passed away. After her death the
 charge was altered from the one under Section 307 to the one
 under Section 302 1.P.C.
                                                                         G
     3. During the trial, the prosecution examined five
witnesses. PW-1 Dr. Abhijit Boralkar who performed the post-
mortem gave the cause of death as follows:-

     "Death due to cardio-respiratory failure (due) to shock             H
    126       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A         due to extensive burns 91% superficial to deep."

         Thus, there is no dispute over the cause of death. The
   question is as to how she received the burn injuries. The mother
   (PW-2) and brother (PW-3) of Chandrakala supported her
   version as to why, she suffered the burn injuries viz., that
8
   appellant was insisting that she fetch a golden ring, and also
   to transfer her maternal uncle's land to him for last about two
   months, and that her refusal has led to this gruesome act by
   him. The defence of the appellant in this behalf was, however,
   inconsistent. ·in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC he
C .indicated the probability of accidental death due to bursting of
   the stove. The investigating officer P.I. Kandre, however
   categorically stated that during examination of the place of
   occurrence no furnace, stove or cooking articles were found
   over there. The appellant examined three witnesses in his
D defence. Their younger son Ramesh (DW-1) stated on the other
   hand that his mother had committed suicide. The cause for
   committing the suicide as stated by Ramesh was however very
   flimsy viz., that he had asked his mother to give him Rs.2 for
   watching a movie, which she had declined. This had led the
E appellant to scold her, because of which she went inside the
   house and bolted the door. Later on when Ramesh was playing
   outside the house, and when his elder brother and father were
   also outside the house, his sister Shobha who was playing at
   the neighbour's house raised the alarm that Chandrakala had
F set herself on fire. According to Ramesh the appellant climbed
   on the roof, removed one of the tin sheets and jumped inside,
   to remove the bolt of the door when it was found that the
   deceased was lying on the floor in a burnt condition. A close
   relative of the appellant viz., Mhase Nagu Vitkar (DW-2) was
G examined who also gave similar evidence. As far as the
   statement of Ramesh (DW-1) is concerned, the same was
   discarded for the reason that it was a hearsay based on the
   statement allegedly made by Shobha to him and Shobha was
   not examined. Besides, the house of the neighbour where
H Shobha was supposed to have been playing, was at a distance
       HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                        127
               [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
of about 150 feet from the house of deceased, and there were          A
many houses in between the two houses. Therefore, her
statement of coming to know that Chandrakala had set herself
on fire could not be accepted, since Shobha would not have
been able to know the sar;ie from such a distance. Similarly,
the statement of Ramesh that his father had jumped into the           B
house after removing the tin sheet of the roof could not be
accepted for the reason that though he is claimed to have
suffered an injury in the process, at the time of his arrest in the
night of 6.4.2000, the appellant declined to go to any hospital
(as the arrest panchnama records) when asked whether he               c
suffered from any pain or injury. This leads to the discarding
of the statement of Dr. Satpute (DW-3) alsq, who is said to have
examined the accused two days subsequent to the incident, on
8.4.2000, and noticed abrasions on his left elbow and arm, and
a burn injury on left elbow. The statement of DW-2 was also
                                                                      0
not accepted for the reasons that he was a person of 70 years
of age who accepted that he could not see beyond 15-20 feet.
He would not have come to know of the incident when his
house is situated at a distance of 150 feet from the place of
occurrence.
                                                                      E
Consideration of the submissions on facts:

      4. The question before us is as to how Chadrakala
received the burn injuries. There are two versions before us
viz., that the appellant poured the kerosene on her, and the F
other that the deceased poured it on herself. The version given
by the deceased is contained in her statements recorded at
the earliest opportunity by two different persons who had no ·
reason to record what they have recorded, unless she had
stated so. And considering the solemn occasion when she was G
making the statements, there was no reason to discard the
same as being untrue. The first statement was recorded at
9:15 p.m., i.e. just one hour and fifteen minutes after the incident
when she was brought to the hospital. The second statement
was also recorded within an hour thereafter at about 10:10 p.m. H
    128      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013J 3 S.C.R.

A Chandrakala was fully conscious at that time and was required
  to be given sedatives only at about 10:30 p.m. This statement
  assumes significance since it was recorded when her family
  members including the appellant were present. Besides, her
  brother and mother have subsequently confirmed her statement
B that her husband was greedy and used to harass her for his
  demands. There was no occasion of their tutoring her since
  they reached the hospital only after her death. It was submitted
  on behalf of the appellant that the failure of the prosecution to
  examine Baba Saheb Vitekar (who extinguished the fire) was
c fatal. In this connection, we must note that this Baba Saheb
  was not present when kerosene was poured on Chandrakala
  and the fire started. He came lateron to extinguish the fire and
  could not have thrown any light as to how the incident took
  place.

D      5. The learned Counsel for the appellant principally
   submitted that as far as the two dying declarations of
   Chandrakala are concerned, there was no corroboration to the
   same, and the uncorroborated dying declarations could not be
   accepted. It was contended that there is a variation between
E the two dying declarations with respect to the reasons for setting
   her on fire. Now as far as this variation between the two
  statements is concerned, it is only this much that in her first
  statement Chandrakala had stated that the appellant used to
  harass and ill-treat her because he was demanding gold from
F her, and was asking her to marry her sister to him for which
  she was not agreeable. In the second dying declaration she
  had once again stated that he was demanding gold from her,
  but had also added that he had sought the transfer of the land
  belonging to her maternal uncle to him. This time she has not
G stated about his insisting to marry her sister. The demand for
  gold is the common factor in both the statements. In the first
  statement she has additionally referred to his insisting on
  marrying her sister, whereas in the second one she has referred
  to h1s demand for the agricultural land of her maternal uncle.
H The Sessions Court and the High Court have not given any
       HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      129
               [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
importance to this variation, and in our view rightly so. This is   A
because one must understand that Chandrakala had suffered
91 % burn injuries. Earlier, the duty-doctor had asked her as
to how the incident had occurred, and later on the Head
Constable on duty had-repeated the query. Any person in such
a condition will state only that much which he or she can           B
remember on such an occasion. When asked once again, the
person concerned can not be expected to repeat the entire
statement in a parrot-like fashion. One thing is very clear in
both the statements viz., the greed of the appellant and her
being harassed on that count. Besides, it is relevant to note       c
that her mother and brother have both corroborated her
statement that the appellant was demanding gold and land from
her. Initially Chandrakala spoke about this demand for gold and
later also for the land. This cannot in any way mean an attempt
to improve. Similarly, the non-mention on the second occasion       0
of his insistence to marry her sister cannot mean an omission
to discredit her statements.

     6. As against that, as far as the version put up by the
appellant is concerned, it is based on the hearsay version of
his daughter Shobha who was supposed to be playing at a             E
house at a distance of 150 feet from appellant's house. She
has not been examined and her version as reproduced by
Ramesh is pressed into service, and an attempt is thus made
to put up a probable parallel story though the story is highly
improbable bordering on falsehood. It is not placed on record       F
that Chandrakala was suffering from any psychological disorder
either. The Courts below rightly rejected this parallel version
as there is no foundation to the same. This is as against the
one which is propounded by the prosecution, which in the
circumstances is the only acceptable version. Initially, the        G
appellant took the defence on 19.8.2002 that Chandrakala
perhaps died due to an accident. This can be seen from his
answer to Question No.20 in the course of statement U/s 313
of Cr.PC, where he stated as follows:-
                                                                    H
    130        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 3 S.C.R.


A         "I had done nothing. Electricity was off. I was not present
          at the house. She might be doing cooking at stove.
          Whether there was outburst of stove is not known to me.
          My son had told me that his mother had been injured and
          then I went at the hospital. Thereaftei; Police caught me
B         and took me to jail. Thereafter, I was there inside. I had
          nothing to say more."
  Thus at that stage he did not state that he jumped into the house
  to rescue his wife. Besides, he stated that he did not want to
  lead any defence witness. Nearly, two years later he examined
C defence witnesses on 15.7.2004 to raise the plea of suicide,
  which was clearly an afterthought. It is very clear that Ramesh
  (DW-1) was put up to save the appellant from the accusation.
  It is also relevant to note that the appellant was absconding for
  a period of over 20 months during the trial from 26.6.2002 to
D 14.4.20014, and it was much later that he surrendered himself.
  There was no reason for him to abscond if he had not indulged
  in the act of pouring kerosene on his wife.

    Submissions on Law
E
       7. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the
  judgment of a bench of two judges of this Court in P. Mani Vs.
  State of Tamil Nadu reported in [2006 (3) SCC 161) to
  canvass that uncorroborated dying declaration must not be
F accepted. In this connection, it must be firstly noted that in that
  case the son and daughter of the deceased lady (who had died
  due to burn injuries) had categorically stated that she was
  suffering from depression and she had made an attempt to
  commit suicide a week prior to the date of the incident.
  Besides, there was no material to show that the appellant was
G absconding or he could not be arrested despite attempts having
  been made therefor. Even in that matter the Court specifically
  observed as follows:-

               "14. Indisputably conviction can be recorded on the
H
        HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                     131
                [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
     basis of the dying declaration alone but therefore the        A
     same must be wholly reliable."

Thus it must be noted that this decision was rendered in the
facts of that case where the dying declaration was not found to
be wholly reliable. The judgment does not in any way deviate
                                                                   8
from the well settled proposition that a dying declaration can
be the sole basis for conviction.

      8. A ground has been raised in this appeal by pointing out
 the defect with respect to the statement recorded by the doctor
 that there is absence of time of recording it, but the time can   C
 be ascertained from the marginal endorsement made thereon.
 A further ground has been raised in this appeal that the second
 statement of the deceased recorded by Head Constable
 Kharat (PW-4) can also not be treated as a dying declaration
 and cannot be read as an evidence since it was neither            D
 recorded by the gazetted officer i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate
 nor in question-answer form. The appellant has relied upon
 observation of this Court in sub-para (5) of para 16 of the
judgement of a bench of three judges in Khushal Rao Vs. State
 of Bombay reported in [AIR 1958 SC 22] in this behalf. The        E
submission is misconceived for the reason that the proposition
in sub-para (5) of para 16 cannot be cut off from the other
propositions in this para which lay down the other parameters
governing the approach towards the relevance of the dying
declarations. When we look to those parameters, there is no        F
reason not to accept that the dying declarations of Chandrakala
gave the real cause of her burn injuries. Chandrakala having
suffered 91 % burn injuries, there was hardly any time to secure
the presence of competent magistrate or to record her
statement in a detailed question-answer form. Absence of           G
these factors itself will not take away the evidentiary value of
the recorded statement. The parameters from this paragraph
are as follows:-

         "16. On a review of the relevant provisions of the
    Evidence Act and of the decided cases in the different         H
    132       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 3 S.C.R.

A         High Courts in India and in this Court, we have come to
          the conclusion, in agreement with the opinion of the Full
          Bench of the Madras High Court, aforesaid, (1) that it
          cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a
          dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction
B         unless it is corroborated; (2) that each case must be
          determined on its own facts keeping in view the
          circumstances in which the dying declaration was made;
          (3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition
          that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than
c         other pieces of evidence; (4) that a dying declaration
          stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence
          and has to be judged in the light of surrounding
          circumstances and with reference to the principles
          governing the weighing of evidence; (5) that a dying
          declaration which has been recorded by a competent
D
          magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form
          of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in
          the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a
          much higher footing than a dying declaration which
          depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all
E         the infirmities of human memory and human character,
          and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying
          declaration, the Court has to keep in view, the
          circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for
          obseNation, for example, whether there was sufficient
F         light if the crime was committed at night; whether the
          capacity of the man to remember the facts stated, had
          not been impaired at the time he was making the
          statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the
          statement has been consistent throughout if he had
G         several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart
          from the official record of it; and that the statement had
          been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the
          result of tutoring by interested parties.•

          9. In this behalf we may as well profitably refer to
H
       HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      133
               [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

paragraph 11 of this very judgment with respect to the rationale   A
in accepting the version contained in the dying declaration.
This Court (per B.P. Sinha, J. as he then was) observed in this
para 11 as follows:-

            "11. The legislature in its wisdom has enacted in 8
     Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act that "When the
     statement is made by a person as to the cause of his
     death, or as to any of the circumstances of the
     transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which
     the cause of that person's death comes into question~ C
     such a statement written or verbal made by a person who
     is dead (omitting the unnecessary words) is itself a
     relevant fact. This provision has been made by the
     legislature, advisedly, as a matter of sheer necessity by
     way of an exception to the general rule that hearsay is
     no evidence and that evidence which has not been tested D
     by cross-examination, is not admissible. The purpose of
    cross-exa.mination is to test the veracity of the statements
    made by a witness. In the view of the legislature, that test
    is supplied by the solemn occasion when it was made,
    namely, at a time when the person making the statement E
    was in danger of losing his life. At such a serious and
    solemn moment, that person is not expected to tell lies;
    and secondly, the test of cross-examination would not be
    available. In such a case, the necessity of oath a/so has
    been dispensed with for the same reasons. Thus, a F
    statement made by a dying person as to the cause of
    death, has been accorded by the legislature, a special
    sanctity which should, on first principles, be respected
    unless there are clear circumstances brought out in the
    evidence to show that the person making the statement G
    was not in expectation of death, not that that
    circumstance would affect the admissibility of the
    statement, but only its weight. It may also be shown by
    evidence that a dying declaration is not reliable because
    it was not made at the earliest opportunity, and, thus, H
    134        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 3 S.C.R.


A         there was a reasonable ground to believe its having been
          put into the mouth of the dying man, when his power of
          resistance against telling a falsehood, was ebbing away;
          or because the statement has not been properly
          recorded, for example, the statement had been recorded
B         as a result of prompting by some interested parties or
          was in answer to leading questions put by the recording
          officer, or, by the person purporting to reproduce that
          statement. These may be some of the circumstances
          which can be said to detract from the value of a dying
c         declaration. But in our opinion, there is no absolute rule
          of law. or even a rule of prudence which has ripened into
          a rule of law. that a dving declaration unless corroborated
          by other independent evidence. is not fit to be acted
          upon. and made the basis of a conviction."
D                                             (emphasis supplied)

        10. The judgment in Khushal Raq has been consistently
  referred to and followed. Thus, after referring to the propositions
  in Khushal Rao, this Court observed in para 7 of Mannu Raja
E Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [1976 (3) SCC 104]
  to the following effect:-

                "7. It was contended by the teamed Counsel for the
          appellants that the oral statement which Bahadur Singh
          made cannot, in the eye of law, constitute a dying
F         declaration because he did not give a full account of the
          incident or of the transaction which resulted in his death.
          There is no substance in this contention because in order
          that the Court may be in a position to assess the
          evidentiary value of a dying declaration, what is
G         necessary is that the whole of the statement made by the
          deceased must be laid before the Court, without
          tampering with its terms or its tenor. Law does not require
          that the maker of the dving declaration must cover the
          whole incident or na"ate the case historv. Indeed, quite
H         often, all that the victim may be able to say is that he was
         HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                       135
                 [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
      beaten by a certain person or persons. That may either          A
      be due to the suddenness of the attack or the conditions
      of visibility or because the victim is not in a physical
      condition to recapitulate the entire incident or to narrate
      it at length. In fact. manv a time. dying declarations which
      are copiously worded or neatly structured excite suspicion      B
      for the reason that they bear traces of tutoring."

                                           (emphasis supplied)

       11. Khushal Rao and Mannu Raja have been referred to
 and followed in Gu/am Hussain Vs. State of Delhi reported in         C
 [2000 (7) SCC 254]. In para 8 thereof, this Court observed as
 follows:-

             "8. Section 32 of the Evidence Act is an exception
      to the general rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence .and       o
      the statement made by a person, written or verbal, of
      relevant facts after his death is admissible in evidence if
      it refers to the cause of his death or any circumstances
      of the transactions which resulted in his death. To attract
      the provisions of Section 32, the prosecution is required       E
      to prove that the statement was made by a person who
      is dead or who cannot be found or whose attendance
      cannot be procured without any amount of delay or
      expense or he is incapable of giving evidence and that
      such statement had been made under any of the                   F
      circumstances specified in sub-sections (1) to (8) of
      Section 32 of the Evidence Act............ "

       12. In a c~se almost identical to the present one, in
  Kanaksingh Raisingh Vs. State of Gujarat reported in [AIR
  2003 SC 691], this Court upheld the conviction in the case of       G
  pouring kerosene and setting the wife on fire by holding that
  so long as the dying declaration is voluntary and truthful, there
· was no reason why it should not be accepted. In Babu Lal Vs.
  State of State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [AIR 2004 SC
                                                                      H
    136       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A   846], this Court had following to say with respect to dying
    declaration in para 7 which is as follows:-

                "7 ........... A person who is facing imminent death,
          with even a shadow of continuing in this world practically
          non-existent, every motive of falsehood is obliterated.
B
          The mind gets altered by most powerful ethical reasons
          to speak only the truth. Great solemnity and S?nctity is
          attached to the words of a dying person because a
          person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies or to
          concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person.
c         The maxim is "a man will not meet his maker with a lie
          in his mouth" (Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire).
          Mathew Arnold said, "truth sits on the lips of a dying man".
          The general principle on which the species of evidence
          is admitted is that they are declarations made in
D         extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and
          when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive
          to falsehood is silenced and mind induced by the most
          powerful consideration to speak the truth; situation so
          solemn that law considers the same as creating an
E         obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive
          oath administered in a court of justice (See R. V.
          Woodcock 1 Leach 500)."

      13. The appellant had sought to create a doubt about the
F prosecution case. In this behalf we must note that a doubt
  sought to be raised has to be a credible and consistent one
  and must be one which will appeal to a reasonable mind. We
  may profitably refer to what this Court has said in this behalf in
  some of the leading judgments. Thus, in Shivaji Sahebrao
  Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [AIR 1973 SC
G 2622) Krishna Iyer, J. observed for a bench of three judges in
  paragraph 6 as follows:-

                "6 ......... The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the
          rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence
H         and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always
       HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                        137
               [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]

    good regardless of justice to the victim and the community,       A
    demand especial emphasis in the contemporary context
    of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has
    a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden
    thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs
    through the'web of our law should not be stretched                B
    morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree
                                             1
    of doubt.. ... ."

           "......... The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-
    heartedly as a learned author Glanville Williams in 'Proof        C
    of Guilt' has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the
    simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished.
    If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead
    to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to
    a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against
    indicated 'persons' and more severe punishment of those           D
    who are found guilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the
    guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding
    the judicial protection of the guiltless ..... ."

          "......... a miscarriage of justice may arise from the      E
    acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of
    the innocent.. ..... ."

     14. The propositions in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade wer~
quoted with approval in State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Gopal               F
reported in [AIR 1988 SC 2154], and further this Court observed
as follows in paragraph 13 (per M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. as he
thenwas):-

         "13 ......... Doubts would be called reasonable if
    they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law G
    cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute
    reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional
    response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts
    as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the
    evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere H
    138        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A         vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an
          imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair
          doubt based upon reason and common-sense. It must
          grow out of the evidence in the case ........ »

B        15. In Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh reported in [AIR
    1990 SC 209], this Court observed at the end of para 4 as
    follows:-

                "4 ....... There is a higher standard of proof in
          criminal cases than in civil cases, but there is no absolute
C         standard in either of the cases. See the observations of
          Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, (1950) 2 All ER 458 at
          p.459, but the doubt must be of a reasonable man. The
          standard adopted must be the standard adopted by a
          prudent man which, of course, may vary from case to
D         case, circumstances to circumstances. Exaggerated
          devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture
          fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby
          destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile
          on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape
E         than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not
          doing justice, according to law. »

        16. These propositions have been consistently followed by
  this Court in Gangadhar Behera Vs. State of Orissa reported
  in· [AIR 2002 SC 3633], Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab
F reported in [2003 (7) SCC 643] and Lakhan Vs. State of
  Madhya Pradesh reported in [2010 (8) SCC 514].

    Hence, the Conclusion:

G      17. Thus as can be seen, by enacting Section 32 (1) in
  the Evidence Act, the legislature has accorded a special
  sanctity to the statement made by a dying person as to the
  cause of his own death. This is by virtue of the solemn
  occasion when the statement is made. Besides, when the
H statement is made at the earliest opportunity without any
         HIRAMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      139
                 [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
influence being brought on the dying person, there is absolutely     A
no reason to take any other view for the cause of his or her
death. The statement has to be accepted as the relevant and
truthful one, revealing the circumstances which resulted into his
death. Absence of any corroboration can not take away its
relevance. Exaggerated doubts, on account of absence of              B
corroboration, will only lead to unmerited acquittals, causing
grave harm to the cause of justice and ultimately to the social
fabric. With the incidentslof wives being set on fire, very
unfortunately continuing to occur in our society, it is expected
from the Courts that they approach such situations very carefully,   c
giving due respect to the dying declarations, and not being
swayed by fanciful doubts.            ·

      18. In the present case there are two dying declarations
recorded at the earliest opportunity. They contained the motive
for the crime, and the reasons as to why the deceased suffered       D
the burn injuries viz., the greed of the appellant to which the
deceased had refused to succumb. As far as her statements
viz., that the appellant had poured kerosene and set her on fire
is concerned, there is no reason to discard it considering the
fact that it was made at the earliest opportunity and on a solemn    E
occasion. The defence put up a story which is totally
inconsistent with the facts which have come on record, and is
a clear afterthought and therefore unacceptable. In fact this
case clearly shows an attempt to put up a totally false defence.
The prosecution has undoubtedly proved its case beyond any           F
reasonable doubt.
     19. In view of the above legal position and facts on record,
we see no reason to interfere in the judgment and order
rendered by the learned Sessions Judge as modified and               G
confirmed by the High Court.
    20. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

B.B.B.                                       Appeal dismissed.
                                                                     H