Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304, 323 and 451 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Asphyxia due to head injury – Deceased had a quarrel with his own brother-coaccused – Co-accused called for his two friends-appellants and appellant no.1 hit a blow with sickle on the forehead of the deceased and other two assaulted with fist and kick blows – Deceased himself went to the police station and lodged the FIR – Later got himself admitted in the hospital, when his health deteriorated – Nine days later, he passed away and as per the post-mortem report, cause of death was asphyxia – Trial court acquitted all three accused – However, the High Court, held the appellant no.1 guilty of offence punishable u/s.304 and appellant no.2 for offences punishable u/ss.323 and 451 and sentenced accordingly – Interference with:
Held: No palpable error or perversity in the reasonings assigned by the High Court while holding both the appellants guilty of the alleged offence – Cause of death appears to be asphyxia – Ordinarily, asphyxia is due to strangulation or throttling, however, such was not the prosecution case – At times, if due to head injury if sufficient oxygen does not reach the brain that may lead to asphyxia – Post-mortem report reveals that the deceased while undergoing treatment of the skull fracture suffered gastroenteritis, which cut off the supply of oxygen, when the liquid in the stomach entered his lungs leading to his death by asphyxia – Post-mortem report simply says that the cause of death was asphyxia, yet in the medico-legal jurisprudence the cause of death of the deceased would be the wound in the head leading to a fissured fracture in the skull which led to asphyxia and ultimately the death of the deceased by ‘hypoxic brain injury’ – Furthermore, the submission that although the first information report was lodged by the deceased himself, yet it could not have been treated as a dying declaration as the same was not in expectation of death, cannot be accepted – Interference with the impugned judgment not called for, however, due to mitigating circumstances the sentence reduced – Sentence of appellant no.1 reduced from 6 years to 1 year and of appellant no.2 from 1 year to period already undergone. [Paras 33, 34, 44, 45, 55-60]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying declaration – Admissibility, if dependent on apprehension of death:
Held: Law in India does not make the admissibility of a dying declaration dependent upon the person's having a consciousness of the approach of death – Even if the person did not apprehend that he would die, a statement made by him about the circumstances of his death would be admissible u/s.32 – Once the dying declaration is held to be believable, the questions that no oath was administered and that the dying declaration was not tested by cross-examination cannot arise – It is incorrect to say that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. [Paras 50, 52]
Jurisprudence – Medico-legal jurisprudence – Asphyxia and Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury – Explained. [Paras 34-44]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.