2010(4)Crimes148(SC), JT2010(8)SC372, 2010(8)SCALE39, (2010)9SCC1, [2010]9SCR993, AIR2010SC3477, 2010(2)ALD(Cri)907, 

The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement, cannot form the basis of conviction. Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. When the eye-witness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail. If after careful scrutiny, thecourt is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration. [Para 16] 1006-H; 1007-A-H; 1008-A-B] 1.2. In the instant case, the trial court found the dying declaration credit-worthy and has held the same to have been made by the deceased `S' in a fit mental state to depose. After making the declaration, she herself signed the same and it also carried an endorsement by the doctor (PW 30) to the effect that she was in a fit mental state. After careful analysis, the trial court as well as the High Court found that there is total clarity in its contents and it is not a case where the deceased was either rambling, unsure or had contradicted herself. There is no compulsion that all dying declarations have to be made before the Magistrate. In the instant case, the Inspector who recorded the statement was cross-examined and the details and his evidence was not shattered by the defence. In fact, not even a suggestion was made to the Investigation Officer about the availability of Magistrate at the relevant point of time. Since the statement of the deceased was very brief as to the circumstances and persons involved who caused brutal injuries on her body as well as her mother and brother, in addition to the same, the doctor (PW 30) has also certified that at the relevant time she was in a fit mental state and endorsed the same by putting his signatures near the signature of the deponent i.e. deceased.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973