While upholding the conviction of a sole accused in a 28-year-old murder case, the Supreme Court has reiterated that a truthful and voluntary dying declaration, if found to be reliable, can by itself form the sole basis of conviction without the necessity of corroboration.

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by an accused in a murder case, challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the Gujarat High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “Both the Trial Court and the High Court have accepted the evidence of PW-1 in respect of the said dying declarations as trustworthy and reliable. The legal position with regard to dying declarations is no longer res integra. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a truthful and voluntary dying declaration, if found to be reliable, can by itself form the sole basis of conviction without the necessity of corroboration . In the present case, however, the said dying declarations are not only found to be reliable but also stand corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, particularly the testimony of PW-12.”

AOR K. Sarada Devi represented the Appellant while AOR Swati Ghildiyal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The deceased, Somabhai Sankabhai Rabari, who was the brother of the complainant, was running a tea stall at the four-way junction close to Boriwala’s Chawli. It was the prosecution case that on December 11, 1998, a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the appellant on account of the appellant having thrown a half-burnt cigarette into the bucket used by the deceased for washing cups and saucers. As per the prosecution, this fact was narrated by the deceased to the complainant. On the following morning, the complainant (PW-1) was informed by the residents of Pattharwali Chawli, that the deceased was lying in an injured condition near his tea stall, having sustained multiple blows.

Upon reaching the spot, the deceased was stated to have informed the complainant that it was the appellant who had assaulted him on account of the earlier quarrel. The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital by PW-1 in an auto, and on the way, he again reiterated that the appellant had inflicted the injuries upon him. However, upon arrival at the hospital, the deceased was declared dead. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with the police. During the course of the investigation, the appellant came to be detained by the police and, pursuant to the information furnished by him, the weapon of offence, namely a sharp knife, was stated to have been discovered. The Trial Court concluded that the appellant was guilty of the offences under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and convicted him. His appeal before the High Court came to be dismissed, thereby leading to the filing of the appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that in order to determine whether the accused has committed the offence alleged against him, certain foundational elements are required to be established by the prosecution, which include the motive for the commission of the crime, the requisite mens rea, and the actus reus. Examining the facts of the case on such principle, the Bench noted that the proximity of time between the quarrel and the occurrence, coupled with the prior threat, clearly established the motive as well as the mens rea attributable to the appellant for the commission of the offence.

While reiterating that a truthful and voluntary dying declaration, if found to be reliable, can by itself form the sole basis of conviction without the necessity of corroboration, the Bench noted that the dying declarations of the deceased in the instant case were not only found to be reliable but also stood corroborated by the surrounding circumstances.

On a perusal of the complainant’s testimony, the Bench held that his evidence inspired confidence and established the essential ingredient necessary to bring home the charge and proved the commission of the offence in question. Upon an independent perusal of the evidence of the panch witnesses, medical witnesses and the official witnesses, the Bench held that their testimonies did not, in any manner, advance the case of the appellant or create any dent in the prosecution's case.

The Bench thus held that the Trial Court was fully justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, as the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding the appeal to be meritless, the Bench dismissed the same. However, considering that the appellant had undergone a substantial period of sentence, the Bench granted him liberty to move an appropriate application for remission in accordance with the extant policy applicable to him.

Cause Title: Mitesh @ T.V. Vaghela v. the State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 469)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR K. Sarada Devi, Advocates Kaveri Kalyana Ram, B Sri Ram, Challa Sateesh Chandra

Respondent: AOR Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate Adarsh Dubey

Click here to read/download Judgment 


Tags: