Raju Devade v. State of Maharashtra
Background
An 18-year-old woman, "Baby," was set on fire near her home in Mehkar in 1989. Before dying, she made three different statements/dying declarations, an oral statement to the police, a formal dying declaration before an Executive Magistrate, and a third one recorded later, which were not entirely consistent with each other. The accused, Raju Devade, with whom she had been in a relationship and who she had been pressing to marry her after a pregnancy, was convicted of murder by the Sessions Judge and the conviction was upheld by the Bombay High Court. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the inconsistent dying declarations made the evidence unreliable.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the law on multiple, inconsistent dying declarations, holding that each dying declaration must be assessed independently on its own merits rather than being discarded merely because it conflicts with another. The Court found the declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate shortly after the incident was credible and corroborated by other evidence (the victim's oral statement to police and testimony of her brother), and that the trial court had rightly given valid reasons for discounting the later, inconsistent third declaration. It rejected the defence's theory that the fire was accidental (caused by a falling oil lamp), noting the medical evidence of 72% burns. The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
A dying declaration can by itself support a murder conviction if the court finds it truthful and voluntary, even without further corroboration, and courts must weigh each dying declaration on its own merits rather than automatically discarding the earliest or most direct one just because a later statement conflicts with it.