Himani Singh Birhman, LL.M, FIMT, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
ABSTRACT
The case of Jayamma & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2021) and Lachma s/o Chandyanaika & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2021) is critically analysed in the light of dying declaration. The Apex Court has summarized reasons for not considering the statement made by deceased scrutinized as dying declaration, herein critically examined how Hon’ble trial court and Hon’ble Apex court failed to appreciate reasons and circumstances in this case.
The court held that the dying declaration was inadmissible as evidence because it was not recorded in question-and-answer form by a police officer, the declarant was illiterate and under the influence of painkillers, the declarant's thumbs were burnt, the doctor and police officer made minor contradictions in their statements, and the police officer recorded the statement himself instead of a magistrate.
However, the author argues that the court overlooked several important factors, including the fact that the declarant had a long-standing animosity with the accused, the declarant's statement was corroborated by other evidence, the declarant's survival chances were very low, and the police officer and doctor were independent witnesses.
The author concludes that the court should have overlooked the minor contradictions in the dying declaration and admitted it as evidence. This would have resulted in a conviction of the accused, who was guilty of a heinous crime.
Keywords: dying declaration, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, admissibility of evidence, circumstantial evidence, reasonable doubt.
Comments