In the present case, Shahin Parveen (deceased) in her complaint alleged that she had been set ablaze by the Accused/Appellants and had been pressuring her to enter into the profession of immoral trafficking and prostitution. It was alleged by the Prosecution that the Accused/Appellants caught hold of the deceased and poured kerosene on her.

The Trial Court found that the prosecution had proved the case against the Accused/Appellants beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the Accused/Appellant approached the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the same and affirmed the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The Accused/Appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court and the Trial Court.

Whether the conviction of the accused can be sustained solely based on the dying declaration?

The Supreme Court observed that “The Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. It has further been held that, where the Court is satisfied about the dying declaration being true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. The Court has observed that if after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration.”

The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the accused can be sustained solely based on the dying declaration if the declaration made by the victim inspires the confidence of the court and proves to be trustworthy i.e. the victim was in a conscious state of mind to make such a dying declaration.