The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the validity of an oral dying declaration and dismissed an appeal against a murder conviction. A Division Bench of Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen rejected the appeal filed by Sandeep Kumar Tripathy, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Sanju Pandey.
Case Background
The trial court had convicted Tripathy for murdering Sanju Pandey, the wife of Niranjan Kumar Pandey, on May 31, 2012, in Jamshedpur. The prosecution alleged that Tripathy developed a one-sided love for Sanju Pandey after meeting her in Chhattisgarh. He later visited her house when she was alone and stabbed her with a “bhujali” (a sharp weapon).
Validity of Oral Dying Declaration
The court emphasized that there is no prescribed format for recording a dying declaration, which can be either oral or written. Sanju Pandey made an oral dying declaration to villager Rudan Singh while injured. Despite being stabbed, she caught hold of the accused and raised an alarm, indicating her mental alertness. The court found no need for a doctor’s certification of her mental state, as Rudan Singh’s testimony confirmed her fitness.
Court’s Observations
The court observed, “It is settled law that a dying declaration may be oral or in writing. While relying on a dying declaration, the Court must ensure it was made in a fit state of mind. There is no prescribed format for recording the dying declaration. If the declaration is oral and terse, it may still inspire confidence in its truthfulness.”
The court further stated, “The dying declaration made by the deceased while injured was prompt and in a fit state of mind. Her actions, such as catching hold of the culprit who stabbed her, provide ample evidence of her physical and mental state. Therefore, even without a doctor’s certification, such a declaration is admissible and reliable.”
Rejection of the Appeal
The court rejected Tripathy’s claim that the dying declaration was not explained to him during his Section 313 statement, noting that it was part of Rudan Singh’s testimony, which was explained to the accused. Additionally, the court held that the non-production of the murder weapon during the trial was not detrimental to the case, as the seizure memo of the blood-stained “bhujali” was well-proved by prosecution witnesses.
The court concluded by dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.