Dayaram & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Background
The victim, Ghansu, had gone to lodge a police complaint after the appellants allegedly beat his son over a dispute involving stray buffaloes. On his way back from the police station, the two appellants allegedly waylaid him, beat him severely with wooden sticks (lathis), and threw his unconscious body into a canal believing him dead. He survived long enough to be rescued, lodge an FIR naming both assailants, and later give a second dying declaration to a magistrate before dying in hospital. The trial court convicted both appellants of murder, relying on the FIR (treated as a first dying declaration) and the magistrate-recorded dying declaration; the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the conviction. The appellants challenged the conviction in the Supreme Court, arguing the second dying declaration was unreliable since it lacked the deceased's thumb impression, and that key prosecution witnesses had turned hostile at trial.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that both dying declarations were mutually consistent and credible: the FIR carried the deceased's thumb impression, was lodged promptly (within about an hour and 20 minutes of the attack), and named the accused with specific details, while the later dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate could not bear a thumb impression only because the deceased's hands were themselves injured: a reasonable, medically explained gap, not a reason to disbelieve it. The Court reaffirmed settled law that a witness declared "hostile" is not wholly discredited: the portion of their testimony given before turning hostile (their examination-in-chief) remains admissible and can support a conviction if otherwise reliable. Since the ocular and medical evidence corroborated both dying declarations and established a complete chain of circumstances, the Court found the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, affirming the murder conviction and life sentence.
Lesson Learnt
A dying person's statement about who attacked them (a "dying declaration") can be the backbone of a murder conviction even without later formalities like a thumb impression, if the surrounding medical and factual evidence explains the gap and supports its truthfulness; and a witness who later turns hostile in court doesn't erase their earlier truthful testimony from the record.