Kushal Rao vs The State of Bombay
Case: Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958)
Court:
Supreme Court of India
Citation:
AIR 1958 SC 22
Bench:
Justice S.K. Das, Justice K. Subba Rao, Justice K.N. Wanchoo
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Kushal Rao, was accused of murder.
Before his death, the deceased made a dying declaration implicating the appellant.
The dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate in question-answer form.
The trial court convicted the accused based solely on the dying declaration, without requiring further corroboration.
The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that a dying declaration alone should not be sufficient to convict unless corroborated.
Legal Issue
Whether a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction, or whether corroboration is necessary.
Judgment (Decision of the Court)
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and laid down important principles regarding dying declarations:
Dying Declaration as Sole Evidence
A truthful, voluntary, and properly recorded dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction, even without corroboration.
Conditions for Accepting Dying Declaration
It should be recorded by a Magistrate preferably.
It must be in question–answer form, not a mere narrative.
The declarant must be in a fit state of mind while making the statement.
The court must ensure that the declaration is voluntary and free from tutoring or prompting.
No Rule of Law Requiring Corroboration
It is not a legal requirement that a dying declaration must be corroborated before conviction.
However, courts may seek corroboration as a rule of prudence, depending on the facts.
Principles Laid Down (Ratio Decidendi)
Dying Declaration (Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872) can form the sole basis of conviction if:
It is made voluntarily,
The declarant was in a fit mental condition, and
It inspires confidence of the court.
Related Case Laws
P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443
Reiterated that a truthful and voluntary dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction.
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958) (present case)
Landmark ruling affirming that corroboration is not mandatory.
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517
Dying declaration recorded properly is sufficient for conviction.
State of UP v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC 552
Multiple dying declarations should be consistent; if contradictory, reliability is doubtful.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Clarified principles regarding circumstantial evidence when linked with dying declarations.
Summary Table
| Point | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958) |
| Citation | AIR 1958 SC 22 |
| Issue | Whether a dying declaration alone is sufficient for conviction |
| Held | Yes, if voluntary, reliable, and properly recorded |
| Key Principle | Corroboration of dying declaration is not mandatory |
| Importance | Landmark precedent under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act |
| Follow-up Cases | P.V. Radhakrishna (2003), Ram Bihari Yadav (1998), Sharad Sarda (1984) |
✅ In Short:
Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay is a landmark case that gave judicial recognition to dying declarations as reliable evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that if trustworthy, they can alone sustain a conviction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments