Khushal Rao vs The State of Bombay
Citation : 1958 AIR 22
Jurisdiction : India
Appellant : Khushal Rao (Defendant in the court of first instance)
Respondent : The State of Bombay (Prosecutor in the court of first instance)
Facts :
The case involves the murder of Baboolal, who was attacked in a narrow lane with sharp weapons. The prosecution’s case was built upon three successive dying declarations made by the deceased within two hours of the assault. The first was made to a doctor, the second to a Police Sub-Inspector, and the third was formally recorded by Magistrate. In all three, Baboolal consistently named the appellant, Khushal Rao, and an associate named Tukaram as his assailants.
Physically, the victim sustained wounds, which medical evidence confirmed were consistent with the weapons described. The High Court had previously rejected the oral testimony of four eye-witnesses, labeling them partisan and untrustworthy, which left the dying declarations as the primary evidence. Additionally, the appellant was found hiding in a locked room days later, a fact the prosecution used to show absconding conduct.
In India, under Article 134(1)(c), a person can only appeal to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal. This certificate is only supposed to be granted if the case involves a substantial question of law or a complexity that only the highest court should settle. The High Court judges were in a legal trap. On one hand, they believed the dying declaration was true and Khushal Rao was guilty. On the other hand, they saw a previous Supreme Court decision (Ram Nath v. State of M.P.) that seemed to say, you cannot convict someone on a dying declaration alone; you must have extra evidence (corroboration). Because the High Court didn’t have strong extra evidence, they felt they couldn’t legally convict him under the Ram Nath rule, even though they knew he was guilty. So, they granted the Certificate of Fitness.
Issues :
1. Whether the Certificate of Fitness granted by the High Court under Article 134(1)(c) was legally sound.
2. Whether there is an absolute rule of law or prudence that prohibit s a conviction based solely on a dying declaration without independent corroboration.
3. Whether a dying declaration is inherently weaker than other forms of evidence because it is not made on oath and is not subject to cross-examination.
Arguments :
Appellant’s Arguments:
The Appellant contended that a dying declaration is a weaker form of evidence because it lacks the safeguards of an oath and cross-examination, making it unsafe to base a death sentence upon it without independent corroboration, per the Ram Nath precedent. They argued the victim might have been tutored by partisan friends and that the appellant’s absconding was merely to avoid an unrelated excise case.
Prosecution’s Arguments:
Conversely, the State argued that Section 32(1) is a rule of sheer necessity where the shadow of death provides a guarantee of truth equivalent to an oath. They emphasized that the declarations were spontaneous, consistent, and recorded by independent officials, which excluded tutoring. The prosecution maintained that if a court is satisfied as to the truth of the statement, the law requires no further evidence to convict.
Decisions :
The Supreme Court established several landmark principles under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. A truthful and voluntary dying declaration can form the. There is no absolute rule requiring corroboration. A dying declaration is not weaker evidence; it stands on the same footing as any other piece of evidence and must be judged by the same principles of weighing testimony. To test reliability, the court must examine the victim’s opportunity for observation (lighting/visibility), mental capacity to remember facts, and whether the statement was consistent throughout. A declaration recorded by a Magistrate in the maker’s own words and in a Q&A format carries much higher evidentiary weight than oral testimony or police notes. The need for corroboration arises only if the court, upon close scrutiny, finds a specific flaw or infirmity in the declaration. If it is pure, no extra evidence is needed.
The Supreme Court tagged the certificate of High court that it has technical error. They clarified a High Court should not grant a certificate just because they find it difficult to weigh the evidence or because they are confused. They should make a decision first. They should only send cases up if there is a massive, unsettled legal question.
The Court was fully satisfied that Baboolal was in a fit state of mind, had sufficient light to identify his attackers, and made his statements before any interested parties could tutor him. Court ruled that they were sufficient, both legally and practically, to sustain the conviction. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and death sentence passed by the High Court.
Relevant Laws :
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- The Evidence Act, 1872 (India)
- Section : 32(1)
- The Constitution of India
- Article : 134(2)(c)
Author :
1. Saraf Al Sakif
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
