A voluntary, consistent dying declaration can sustain conviction without Magistrate recording or medical certification.

The appellant and the deceased, Hasruddin Sarafuddin Shaikh, were acquaintances, room partners and fruit sellers residing in Surat. On 21 May 2013, they travelled to Daman, consumed liquor near Girish Bar, and allegedly quarrelled after the deceased refused to lift a bag containing liquor. The appellant allegedly assaulted the deceased repeatedly with a knife and fled.

The injured deceased was found the next morning and was taken to Government Hospital, Marward, where he made oral statements to persons present and a written statement to the police naming “Tahir” as the assailant.

He was later shifted to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, and died on 4 June 2013 due to septicemia with perforative peritonitis resulting from the stab injuries.

The appellant was arrested on 6 July 2013 and was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Court, Daman, which sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine. He challenged the conviction in the present appeal.

Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal and sufficiently connected to the injuries inflicted during the incident, notwithstanding the delay between the assault and death and the intervening septicemia?

Whether the oral and written statements made by the deceased constituted reliable and admissible dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act?

Whether the dying declarations were unreliable because they were not recorded by a Magistrate, lacked a separate medical fitness certificate, and were allegedly made while the deceased was semi-conscious?

Whether the prosecution established that the appellant was the person named as “Tahir”, “Tahir Pathan” or “Tahir Kunnu Pathan” in the dying declarations?

Whether the discrepancy in the IMEI numbers and the non-examination of the registered mobile-number holders created a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s identity?

The Court applied Section 302 IPC, which prescribes punishment for murder, and Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under which a statement by a deceased person relating to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death is relevant and may constitute substantive evidence.

Relying on Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that a dying declaration need not be recorded by a Magistrate or accompanied by a doctor’s certification if the Court is otherwise satisfied that it was voluntary, truthful and made by a person in a fit mental condition.

Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh was relied upon for assessing consistency, voluntariness, absence of tutoring, opportunity to identify the assailant and the effect of multiple declarations.

The Court relied on Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab, and Neeraj Kumar alias Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. for the proposition that imminent expectation of death is not necessary and that a statement recorded by a police officer may be admissible as a dying declaration.

Under Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, septicemia or other complications naturally flowing from the original injuries do not break the causal chain where the injuries were fatal or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The Court further applied Sundar alias Sundarrajan v. State, holding that a variation confined to the last digit of an IMEI number does not necessarily indicate a different device where the first fourteen digits correspond.

The medical evidence established that the deceased had sustained multiple incised and stab injuries caused by a hard and sharp weapon; the post-mortem doctor opined that the injuries were serious and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The Court held that septicemia with perforative peritonitis was a complication directly resulting from those injuries and therefore did not sever causation merely because death occurred approximately thirteen days later.

The oral declarations made to the waiter and the Head Constable, together with the written declaration recorded by the police officer, consistently identified Tahir as the assailant and described the same motive and manner of assault.

The deceased was conscious and talking when the written statement was recorded, and the doctor had endorsed the statement; accordingly, the absence of a Magistrate’s recording or separate medical certificate was not fatal.

The Court also rejected the identity challenge because the appellant offered only a bald plea of false implication, while the evidence showed that the mobile number initially attributed to him was linked through its IMEI to the handset recovered from him, with only the final digit differing—a discrepancy treated as non-material under the applicable technical principle.

The alleged supplementary statement from 26 May 2013 was not exhibited or proved and could not be relied upon to contradict the admitted evidence.

The identity of the appellant as the assailant was also held sufficiently established.

The appeal was dismissed, the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 were upheld, and all pending applications were disposed of.