Introduction of Kushal Rao vs State of Bombay (1958 AIR 22)
The landmark case of Kushal Rao vs State of Bombay (1958) served as an important precedent regarding
the use of dying declarations as evidence in criminal law. On 25th September, 1957, the Supreme Court in
its decision affirmed that a reliable dying declaration can be the sole basis for a conviction without the
need for corroborative evidence. This case highlighted the application of Section 32(1) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and stressed on the significance of a dying declaration in determining the cause of
death and identifying the assailants.
Historical Context and Facts of Kushal Rao vs State of Bombay (1958
AIR 22)
The case at hand involves the Appellant, Kushal Rao who was convicted for murder under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of Baboolal. The following are the brief facts of the case-
Alleged Offence
On the night of 12th February, 1956 the alleged offence took place in a narrow lane in Nagpur. The
Appellant, Kushal Rao along with other individuals was accused of attacking Baboolal.
Injuries and Death
Baboolal sustained severe injuries from an attack involving swords and spears. He was admitted to the
hospital where he later succumbed to these injuries.
Prosecution’s key Evidences
The case of the Prosecution relied on three dying declarations made by Baboolal. In each declaration, he
named Kushal Rao as one of his assailants.
o First Dying Declaration: Recorded by the attending doctor at the hospital where Baboolal was
admitted.
o Second Dying Declaration: Made to a Sub-Inspector of police.
o Third Dying Declaration: Recorded by a Magistrate of First Class. Each of these statements was
consistent in identifying Kushal Rao as a participant in the attack.
Apprehension of the Accused
Kushal Rao had absconded after the incident and was arrested 4 days later under circumstances that raised
suspicion and strengthened the case of the Prosecution against him.
Arguments of the Defence
The Defence contended that firstly the dying declarations were unreliable due to the absence of
corroborating evidence. Secondly, the possibility of external influence on the statements of Baboolal
existed. Lastly, the physical and mental state of Baboolal at the time of the declarations could have
affected the accuracy of his statements and raised questions about their genuineness.
Judgement of the Trial Court
The Trial Court convicted Kushal Rao and Tukaram under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) r/w
Section 34 IPC for the murder of Baboolal based on the three dying declarations and his suspicious
conduct in absconding post-incident.
Appeal in the Nagpur High Court
Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the Appellant filed an appeal in the Nagpur High Court.
However, the High Court of Nagpur upheld the decision of the Trial Court but acquitted Tukaram on the
ground that there was a suspicion regarding his identity.
Appeal in the Supreme Court
The Appellant Kushal Rao approached the Supreme Court against the decision of the Nagpur High Court.
Issue addressed in Kushal Rao vs State of Bombay (1958 AIR 22)
The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the Appellant can be convicted for the
offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 without any other corroborating evidence?
Legal Provisions involved in Kushal Rao vs State of Bombay (1958
AIR 22)
In the Kushal Rao case Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) played a significant role. The
following is the legal analysis of this provision -
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 32 IEA deals with the cases in which a statement of relevant fact by a person who is dead or
cannot be found, etc., is relevant. It states that the statements, written or verbal, or relevant facts-
o made by a person who is dead or
o who cannot be found or
o who has become incapable of giving evidence or
o whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the
circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the
following cases
1. When it relates to the cause of death:
When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances
of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes
into question.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they
were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the
cause of his death comes into question.
Judgment and Impact of Kushal Rao vs State of Bombay (1958 AIR
22)
The Supreme Court in Kushal Rao analysed the evidentiary value of a dying declaration under Section
32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) and also clarified its significance in criminal cases.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Kushal Rao primarily based on three consistent dying
declarations made by the deceased i.e., Baboolal who identified the accused (Kushal Rao) as his attacker.
The decision in this case established key principles regarding the reliability and sufficiency of dying
declarations as evidence in criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that Section 32(1) acts as an exception to the general rule against hearsay
evidence due to the necessity of admitting such statements when the declarant is no longer available to
testify. The Court clarified the following-
Dying Declaration as Sole Basis of Conviction
The Court pointed out that there is no absolute rule which requires corroboration of a dying declaration for
it to form the sole basis of conviction. A dying declaration if found reliable can be sufficient for a
conviction without any corroborative evidence.
Assessment Based on Circumstances
The Court stated that each dying declaration must be evaluated based on the specific facts and
circumstances in which it was made. It also highlighted that dying declarations stand on the same footing
as other evidence and must be assessed with reference to principles of weighing evidence.
Evidentiary Value of Recorded Dying Declarations
A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate in Q&A format and in the words of the deceased
holds a higher evidentiary value as it minimises the risk of distortion or unreliability that might arise from
oral testimony.
Factors Affecting Reliability
The Court focuses on the assessment of the reliability of a dying declaration and considering factors like -
o the opportunity of the declarant for observation
o the lighting conditions if the incident occurred at night
o the absence of tutoring and consistency across multiple declarations
o the mental and physical ability of the declarant to remember details accurately.
The Court by applying these principles observed that the three dying declarations in the Kushal Rao case
consistently named the Appellant (Kushal Rao) and Tukaram as the assailants.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that the dying declarations did not suffer from any infirmities and can be
relied upon without corroboration to uphold the conviction.
Impact of Kushal Rao Judgement (1958 AIR 22)
The judgement in Kushal Rao vs State of Bombay has had a significant impact on the legal interpretation
of dying declarations especially in criminal cases. The Supreme Court by ruling that a reliable dying
declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction set a significant precedent. The decision reinforced
the admissibility and weight of dying declarations when carefully evaluated.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in Kushal Rao vs State of Bombay concluded that the need for corroboration of a
dying declaration does not arise due to any inherent unreliability in such statements but only when certain
issues or doubts are detected in a given case. If the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is genuine
and accurate on the account of the events resulting in death and correctly identifies the assailants then in
such a case no additional corroboration is necessary. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the
Appellant, Kushal Rao under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court stated the reliability
of the dying declarations as sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
