SUBHASH SONI & Anr. v. STATE OF M.P

the purported oral dying declaration made ':ly deceased, the trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court held that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 was not credible, but by placing reliance upon the purported oral dying declaration, B upheld the conviction of the appellants. In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that after having discarded the version of PWs 2 and 3, the High Court should not have placed reliance on the so-called C dying declaration. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, the accused has no power of cross- o examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath. This is the reason the court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. The court has to be on guard that the E statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, or prompting or a product of imagination. The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it can base its further conviction on corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. [Para G 5] [142-8-E] the same without any F