Naeem Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Supreme Court, March 5, 2024]
Background and Facts
The case arose from the tragic death of Shahin Parveen, who suffered severe burn injuries on December 1, 2016, and was admitted to the District Hospital in Moradabad. In her dying declaration, she accused her brother-in-law (Pappi @ Mashkoor), his wife (Naeema), and Naeema’s brother (Naeem) of setting her ablaze after pressuring her into immoral activities following her husband’s death. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on this dying declaration, which was recorded when the victim was deemed to be in a fit state of mind.
Trial and Appeal
The trial court convicted all three accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment based solely on the dying declaration. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it inspires full confidence, is coherent, consistent, and made voluntarily without any evidence of tutoring or coercion. The Court cited its earlier ruling in Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) to support this principle.
The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, scrutinized the dying declaration and found it trustworthy and reliable regarding the role of Pappi @ Mashkoor, the brother-in-law. The Court found that the motive attributed by the deceased was specifically related to Pappi.
However, the Court noted that the dying declaration did not attribute any specific role to Naeema and Naeem. The only reference to them was that they aided Pappi, but there was no direct evidence or detailed allegation against them.
The Court emphasized that the rule requiring corroboration of a dying declaration is a rule of prudence, not of law. If the declaration is found to be voluntary and credible, it can form the sole basis for conviction.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Pappi @ Mashkoor, finding the dying declaration sufficient and reliable for his conviction.
Naeema and Naeem were acquitted due to lack of specific evidence linking them directly to the crime, and the benefit of the doubt was extended to them.
The appeals of Naeema and Naeem were allowed, and their convictions and sentences were set aside, while the appeal of Pappi was dismissed.
Key Points:
A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is voluntary, coherent, and inspires full confidence.
Specific roles and evidence are essential for conviction; benefit of doubt must be given if evidence is lacking.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Pappi but acquitted Naeema and Naeem due to insufficient evidence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments