Reliability of Dying Declaration Vitiated by Non-Examination of Vital Witnesses and Defective Investigation

The prosecution alleged that on 18.05.2012, due to prior enmity involving a family dispute and customary divorce, A1-A4 (appellants) and A5-A7 (acquitted) intercepted the deceased Kannan (D1) and Periyasamy (D2) near a TASMAC shop in Thadikombu. A5-A7 allegedly threw chilli powder, and A1-A4 attacked the deceased with knives and aruvals

PW1 (mother) and PW2 (father) claimed to be eyewitnesses

D1 was brought dead to the hospital; D2 survived for five days, during which a dying declaration (Ex.P16) was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate

The Trial Court convicted A1-A4 for murder (Section 302 IPC) while acquitting A5-A7

The appellants challenged this conviction on grounds of unreliable eyewitness testimony and defective investigation.

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 148 (Rioting with deadly weapons) of the IPC

It relied on Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the relevancy of dying declarations

Procedurally, it considered Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the importance of recording witness statements

The Court cited the precedent of State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108 to address the consequences of defective investigation

It maintained the principle that while a conviction can be based on a dying declaration alone, if the declaration is partially disbelieved or lacks reliability, it requires independent corroboration

The Court found the eyewitness accounts of PW1 and PW2 highly suspect due to material contradictions regarding their arrival time at the scene and the distance from which they witnessed the event

There was a significant, unexplained discrepancy in the timing of the incident between the Accident Register (3:15 p.m.) and the prosecution's narrative

The Court noted a "slipshod" investigation by PW16, who failed to examine vital witnesses like the share auto driver, the ambulance drivers, and individuals (Murugesan and Rathinavel) who transported D2 to the hospital

Crucially, while the Trial Court acquitted A5-A7 despite them being named in D2's dying declaration, the High Court held that a dying declaration cannot be "dissected" to convict some while acquitting others named therein without further corroboration

Furthermore, physical evidence like the amputated portion of D2's arm was not recorded in the observation mahazar, suggesting the IO did not actually visit the scene

The Court set aside the conviction and sentences of A1, A2, A3, and A4, ordering their immediate release

Additionally, the Court expressed "anguish" at the "bizarre" investigation and directed departmental action against the Investigating Officer, PW16. High Court allowed the appeals