Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Statement of injured under, if can be treated as dying declaration after death – Brother of PW-1, informant attacked by the appellant-accused and later died in hospital – Appellant convicted u/s.304 Part II, IPC – Plea of appellant that the statement of the injured-deceased recorded u/s.161 cannot be treated as dying declaration since his death occurred after more than three months – Held: s.32 of the 1872 Act deals with cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found etc. is relevant – Statement recorded by police u/s.161, CrPC falling within the provisions of Clause(1) of s.32, 1872 Act is relevant and admissible – Trial Court rightly held that the statement of the injured-deceased was admissible u/s.32, 1872 Act because it was regarding his cause of death and how he was injured – Further, the statement made by the injured-deceased found corroboration from the injuries on his body and the sequences of the events as claimed by the prosecution – No error in the judgment of the trial court as well as of the High Court in relying on the statement of the injured-deceased recorded by the IO – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.304, Part II. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals with cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found etc. is relevant. Section 161, CrPC deals with examination of witnesses by police. Section 162, CrPC deals with “statements to police not to be signed– Use of Statements in evidence”. [Paras 8, 9] [951-D; 952-C]
1.2 Sub-section (2) to Section 162, CrPC incorporates a clear exception to what has been laid down in sub-section (1). The statement recorded by police under Section 161, falling within the provisions of clause(1) of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, thus, is clearly relevant and admissible. Present is a case where a statement was recorded by I.O. under Section 161 of the victim on 05.12.1990. Both the trial court and the High Court held the statement relevant and placed reliance on the said statement. No error is found in the judgment of the trial court as well as of the High Court in relying on the statement of the injured recorded by the I.O. on 05.12.1990. The trial court after appreciation of evidence recorded the findings that deceased had acid injuries as well as bomb blast injuries. In the acid attack, he lost his eyesight and also lost his right foot. The trial court rightly held that statement of deceased made on 05.12.1990 is admissible under Section 32 because it is regarding his cause of death and how he was injured. [Paras 10, 15-17] [953-C; 960-E-F; 961-F]
1.3 The injuries on the body of deceased fully support the prosecution case. The statement made by the deceased on 05.12.1990, thus, finds corroboration from the injuries on the body of deceased and the sequences of the events and manner of incidents as claimed by the prosecution. PW1, the informant fully supported the prosecution case. [Para 18] [962-C] Mukeshbhai Gopalbhai Barot v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCALE 477 ; Sri Bhagwan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 12 SCC 137 : [2012] 12 SCR 774 ; Najjam Faraghi @ Nijjam Faruqui v. State of West Bengal (1998) 2 SCC 45 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 148 – relied on.
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710 ; Paparambaka Rosamma and Others v. State of A.P. (1999) 7 SCC 695 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 328 ; Koli Chunilal Savji and Another v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 284 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.