Thumb Signal

The apex court reiterates that a declaration given in a proper state of mind can be made the basis for conviction even in the absence of a thumb impression or signature

- Surabhi Mehra

RELYING on various landmark precedents, the Supreme Court has reiterated that where a dying declaration is true, voluntary and correct, it should not be rejected on the grounds that the person who recorded it could not affix his signature or thumb impression.

The bench, consisting of Justices Indu Malhotra and R Subhash Reddy, upheld the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein the two accused were charged and thereafter convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of two facts: First, when the witness has turned hostile, his statement cannot be discarded in its entirety for the reason that he turned hostile, and second, where there are two dying declarations consistent with each other and in coherence with facts that lead to conclusion of guilt, only conviction is to be adjudicated and it cannot be vitiated merely because the thumb impression or signature could not be recorded.

The facts of the case are thus: On December 19, 1991, Ghansu Yadav filed an FIR against the accused persons wherein he stated that while he was returning from a police station after filing a complaint against one accused for beating his son, the two accused, who were hiding behind the bushes, caught him and beat him, causing serious injuries on his hands, legs and head. Thereafter, believing that Yadav had died, the accused threw his body into a canal. How ever, he regained consciousness and cried out for help and passersby took him to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution witnesses, after examination-in-chief, turned hostile during cross-examination. The FIR lodged was considered the first dying declaration and another one was recorded before an executive magistrate. Both were made when Yadav was fully conscious and in a fit state of mind.