NDLI: Irfan @ Naka Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Evidence – Dying declarations – Sole basis of conviction – When not justifi ed
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Order
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration: Whether the prosecution could be said tohave proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant whowas convicted for off ence punishable u/ss.302, 436 and 326-A, IPC andsentenced to death, for allegedly setting his son and his real brothers onfi re, solely on the basis of dying declarations.Evidence – Dying declarations – Sole basis of conviction – Whennot justifi ed – Appellant had strained relationship with his son (victimdeceased)from his first marriage and his two brothers (victimsdeceased),all of whom, as per the prosecution, were opposed to hissecond marriage – He is said to have locked the door of the room fromoutside in which the victims were sleeping, poured kerosene in the roomand set it on fi re – Dying declarations of two of the deceased personsrelied upon – Legality:Held: Courts are fi rst required to satisfy themselves that the dyingdeclaration in question is reliable and truthful before placing any relianceupon it – Dying declaration while carrying a presumption of being true mustbe wholly reliable and inspire confi dence – Where there is any suspicionover the veracity of the same or the evidence on record shows that the dyingdeclaration is not true it will only be considered as a piece of evidence butcannot be the basis for conviction alone – In the instant case, neither thetwo dying declarations nor the oral evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 inspire anyconfi dence – Both these witnesses do not fi gure in the two dying declarations The two dying declarations are not consistent or rather contradictory tothe oral evidence on record – Although, the appellant was named in the twodying declarations as a person who set the room on fi re yet the surroundingcircumstances render such statement very doubtful – Diffi cult to rest theconviction solely based on the two dying declarations – Prosecution has notproved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Appellantacquitted. [Paras 47, 61, 64, 67-69]Criminal Law – Charge against accused – Duty of prosecution toestablish beyond reasonable doubt:Held: It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against theaccused beyond reasonable doubt – The benefi t of doubt must always go infavour of the accused – Dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidenceto be relied on provided it is proved that it was voluntary and truthful andthe victim was in a fi t state of mind – It is just not enough for the courtto say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in thedying declaration as the assailant – Evidence – Dying declaration. [Para 63]Evidence – Dying declaration – Acceptability – Theory:Held: The juristic theory regarding the acceptability of a dyingdeclaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the partyis at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, whenevery motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the mostpowerful consideration to speak only the truth – Notwithstanding the same,great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to iton account of the existence of many circumstances which may aff ect theirtruth – The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn andserene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement – It is forthis reason, the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensedwith – Since, the accused has no power of cross-examination, the courtsinsist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire fullconfi dence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness – However, thecourt should always be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased wasnot as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination.[Para 43] Evidence – Dying declaration – Reliance upon – Factors to beconsidered – Duty of the Court:Held: Despite a general consensus of presuming that the dyingdeclaration is true, they have not been stricto-sensu accepted, rather thegeneral course of action has been that judge decides whether the essentialsof a dying declaration are met and if it can be admissible, once done, it isupon the duty of the court to see the extent to which the dying declarationis entitled to credit – Thus, there is no hard and fast rule for determiningwhen a dying declaration should be accepted – Duty of the Court is to decidethis question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and befully convinced of the truthfulness of the same – Factors to be considered,enumerated. [Paras 60 and 62]Evidence Act, 1872 – s.8 – Conduct:The conduct of the accused may be unnatural because he was residingin the very same house, however, the conduct which may be a relevant factu/s.8, by itself may not be suffi cient to hold a person guilty of the off enceof murder – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302. [Para 46]Evidence – Dying declaration – Sanctity/presumption attachedto – Justifi cation for:The justifi cation for the sanctity/presumption attached to a dyingdeclaration is two fold- (i) ethically and religiously it is presumed that aperson while at the brink of death will not lie, whereas (ii) from a publicpolicy perspective it is to tackle a situation where the only witness to thecrime is not available. [Para 64]Evidence – Dying declaration – Suspicion as regards correctnessof – Duty of Court:It is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying declarationalone in the cases where suspicion, like the case on hand is raised, as regardsthe correctness of the dying declaration – In such cases, the Court may haveto look for some corroborative evidence by treating the dying declarationonly as a piece of evidence – The evidence and material available on recordmust be properly weighed in each case to arrive at an appropriate conclusion.[Para 48]
Judge	N/A
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 758
Petitioner	Irfan @ Naka
Respondent	The State Of Uttar Pradesh
SCR	[2023] 11 S.C.R. 789
Judgement Date	2023-08-23
Case Number	825-826

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Irfan @ Naka Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra

Makhan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana

Padmaben Shamalbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Rajasthan Vs. Kheraj Ram

Shudhakar Vs. State of M.p.

Uttam Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Kashi Vishwanath Vs. State of Karnataka

Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of M. P.

Kapil Deo Shukla Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Irfan @ Naka Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Irfan @ Naka Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra

Makhan Singh Vs. The State of Haryana

Padmaben Shamalbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

State of Rajasthan Vs. Kheraj Ram

Shudhakar Vs. State of M.p.

Uttam Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Kashi Vishwanath Vs. State of Karnataka

Dinesh Jaiswal Vs. State of M. P.

Kapil Deo Shukla Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Irfan @ Naka Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh