Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302/498A r/w. s. 34 – Murder by husband and his sister – By setting his wife on fire – 98% burn injuries– Dying declarations made to the attending doctor as well as to the Judicial Magistrate – Defence plea that the deceased committed suicide – Trial Court acquitted the accused giving them benefit of doubt – High Court relying on the dying declarations convicted the accused – On appeal, held: If the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary and not a result of any extraneous influence, court can convict on the basis of such dying declaration – However, in view of the health condition of the deceased, the dying declaration needs corroboration – Failure to examine important witnesses leads to non-corroboration of dying declaration – The defence version of suicide also cannot be ruled out in the facts of the case – Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused holding that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – On acquittal of the accused by trial court the presumption of innocence got strengthened, and hence High Court should not have lightly interfered with the decision of trial court – Evidence – Dying Declaration – Appeal – Appeal against Acquittal. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. [Para 7][909-A-B]
Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630 – relied on.
2.1 No doubt, a dying declaration is an extremely important piece of evidence and where the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary and not a result of any extraneous influence, the Court can convict the accused only on the basis of a dying declaration. [Para 14][912-C-D]
Sham Shankar Kankaria v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 13 SCC 165 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 709
– relied on.
2.2 In a case of the present nature where the victim had 98% burns and the doctor has stated from the record that a painkiller was injected and the dying declaration had been recorded thereafter, there is a serious doubt whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. She must have been in great agony and once a sedative had been injected, the possibility of her being in a state of delusion cannot be completely ruled out. It would also be pertinent to mention that the endorsement made by the doctor that the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement has been made not before the statement but after the statement was recorded. Normally it should be the other way round. The combined effect of the trauma with the administration of painkillers could lead to a case of possible delusion, and therefore, there is a need to look for corroborative
evidence
in
the
present
case.
[Paras 13 and 15][912-A-C; 913-B]
3. The defence version that the deceased was not willing to go to the village to look after her in-laws and, therefore, she committed suicide, cannot be brushed aside. There are two factors which cast a grave doubt with regard to the prosecution story. It is the admitted case that the house in which the victim was residing with her husband consists of one room with a kitchen. It stands proved that the fire took place in the kitchen and not in the bedroom. The panchanama report indicates that the ornaments i.e. mangalsutra, a nathni (nose ring), some glass bangles and peinjan (an ornament worn on the foot) were kept below a pillow on the cot in the room. It is also recorded that, according to the accused, these ornaments belong to his wife. Mangalsutra, peinjan and even glass bangles are such ornaments which an Indian married woman would normally not remove. Therefore, the defence version that the deceased took off all these ornaments and then went to the kitchen and committed suicide cannot be totally ruled out. [Paras 16, 17 and 18][913-C-E; 914-B-C]
4. None of the witnesses from the neighbourhood have been examined. Even as per the prosecution case it was the neighbours who first raised an alarm. There is no explanation why none of them have been examined. It is also the prosecution case that the accused husband along with another neighbour went to the hospital to arrange for an ambulance. This person has not been examined. The non-examination of these important witnesses leads to non-corroboration of the dying declaration. The best witnesses would have been the neighbours who reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. They would have been the best persons to state as to whether the victim told them anything about the occurrence or not. [Para 19][914-D-E]
5. Therefore, the finding of the trial court that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, could not be said to be perverse. It was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. [Para 20][914-F]
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.