The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the first dying declaration—when found trustworthy and consistent—stands tall even if later statements introduce minor contradictions.
In a recent judgment, a Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the conviction of a woman accused of murder, emphasizing that subsequent inconsistencies could not dilute the strength of the victim’s initial account. The Court observed that the first statement, made to the attending doctor, was spontaneous, credible, and clearly identified the accused as the one who doused the victim in kerosene and set her ablaze.
The Gujarat High Court had earlier reversed the woman’s acquittal, relying heavily on that first declaration. The Supreme Court, in turn, endorsed the High Court’s reasoning, finding the medical evidence to align perfectly with the victim’s earliest version of events.
The defence had urged that multiple dying declarations with slight variations created reasonable doubt, warranting an acquittal. The Court disagreed. It clarified that each declaration must be examined independently for its evidentiary worth, and the reliability of one cannot be dismissed merely because others exist.
Justice Pancholi, writing for the Bench, underscored that minor differences in subsequent statements cannot overshadow the truthfulness of the first. “When the earliest statement bears the mark of spontaneity and is supported by independent evidence, it deserves full credence,” the Court noted, describing it as the “most natural and reliable account” of the tragedy.
In essence, the judgment reinforces a principle of deep human logic — the first cry of truth, uttered in the shadow of death, carries a clarity that later retellings may blur but never erase.
