Hon'ble Supreme Court Held: “Though a dying declaration is entitled to grate wait, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the trust as an obligation of oath could be. There is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the 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, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It can not be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration can not form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under as indicated in Paniben v. state of Gujarat 1992 (2) SCC 474 (i) there is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration can not be acted upon without corroboration (ii) if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration (iii) the Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration careful and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (iv) where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (v) where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying delaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected.
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity can not form the basis of conviction.
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitness said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion can not prevail. (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given the dying declaration, the said declaration can not be acted upon (xi) Where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trust worthy and reliable, it held to be accepted. Para 15
| 
