Back
1999(7) Supreme 386
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
K.T. Thomas & A.P. Misra, JJ.
Kishan Lal -Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1998
Decided on 17-8-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : U.R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Sushil Kr. Jain, A.P. Dhamija, Umesh Bohre, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Advocate.
Held : There is distinction between the evaluation of dying declaration under the English Law and that under the Indian Law. Under the English Law, credence and the relevancy of a dying declaration is only when person making such statement is in hopeless condition and expecting an imminent death. So under the English Law for its admissibility, the declarant should have been in actual danger of death at the time when they are made, and that he should have had a full apprehension of his danger and the death should have ensued. Under the Indian Law the dying declaration is relevant whether the person who makes it was or was not under expectation of death at the time of declaration. Dying declaration is admissible not only in the case of homicide but also in civil suits. Under the English Law, the admissibility rests on the principle that a sense of impending death produces in a man’s mind the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man under oath. The general principle on which this species of evidence are admitted is that they are declarations made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak only the truth. If evidence in a case reveals that declarant has reached this state while making declaration then within the sphere of the Indian Law, while testing the credibility of such dying declaration weightage can be given. Of course depending on other relevant facts and circumstances of case. (Para 17)
(ii) Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27-Confession-Extra judicial confession-Before a confession is relied on it must be clear and unequivocal, whether it is in a judicial or in an extra judicial confession-Accused allegedly made confession before two panchayat meetings-In alleged first panchayat confession names of accused not mentioned-In second alleged panchayat confessional statement several persons including accused were named but there no mention that accused had caused death of deceasee-Held : Reliance cannot be placed on the so called confession. (Para 22).
(iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Police filing report referring case-Private complaint thereafter-Trial Court acquitting accused-High Court convicting accused-Appeal against conviction - Accused allegedly poured kerosene oil chest of his wife and set fire-Two dying declarataions, one oral dying declarations to her father, grand mother and uncle, another recorded by judicial magistrate-Statements in two declarations contradictory-Victim did not name assailant/ accused in declaration recorded by Judicial Magistrate despite specific question-Death of deceased after two months-Deceased gave birth to a child during treatment-Alleged extra judicial confession unreliable - Neither Investigation officer was examined nor police record which contained earliest version of deceased-Acquittal recorded by Trial Court just and proper-High Court not justififed in convicting accused-Order of acquittal restored. (Paras 8 to 24)
Judgment
A.P. Misra, J.-The appellant, Kishan Lal, husband of deceased Smt. Sulochana has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”)
2. The High Court convicted the appellant on an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The brief facts are that Smt. Sulochana, according to the prosecution case, was sleeping on the intervening night between 11th and 12th Septmenber, 1976 with the mother of the appellant on a separate cot when she was burnt by sprinkling kerosence oil on her chest. She was shifted to the hospital at Pilibanga at 2.00 a.m. Doctor of the hospital sent information to SHO Police Station Lekhuwali on which investigation started. At 4.30 a.m. police recorded the statement of the deceased. The statement recorded by the police was not brought on the record by the prosecution. She was initially treated at Pilibanga hospital and was later shifted to Bikaner Hospital. While in the hospital on the 17th September, 1976, Smt. Sulochana gave birth to a macerated male child. On 28th October, 1976 skin grafting was done on her.
3. The case of the complainant is that deceased Smt. Sulochana has given an oral dying declaration to her father, grandmother and uncle that she was burnt by the appellant, his mother, father and brother. On 11th November, 1976 complaint was made by the father of the deceased Smt. Sulochana that her daughter was burnt and on his said complaint a dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate.
4. On the 15th of November, 1976 all of a sudden the condition of Smt. Sulochana deterirated and she died in the evening. On the basis of he above complaint dated 11th November, 1976 a case was registered against the accused and investigation was started. The police after investigation could not find any sustainable evidence against the appellant and other family members mentioned in the complaint, hence sutmitted final report.
5. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by Chandu Lal, father of the deceased before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in which he referred to one dying declaration dated 6th November, 1976 made to him, his wife, grand-mother and other relatives apart from one dated 11.11.1976 before a Magistrate. It also mentions oral extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant in a Panchayat. Though complaint was made against four persons, namely, the appellant, his mother Poora, his father Banwari Lal and his brother Om Prakash, but the Magistrate took cognizance only agaist the appellant and his mother Smt. Poora under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.
6. During trial, complainant produced 11 witnesses which included PW. 10 Muarilal, Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (who recorded the statement of Smt. Sulochana on 11th November, 1976) and PW.11 Dr. Sharad Chand Kalla (who conducted the post-mortem examination on 16th November, 1976). It is significant to note that the complainant did not examine either the Investigating Officer or called for police record which contained the earliest version of the deceased, which is said to have been recorded at 4.30 a.m. on the 12th September, 1976 itself in which police finally submitted final report.
7. The complainant relied strongly on two dying declarations, one oral declaration, as aforesaid, dated 6th November, 1976 and the other 11th November, 1976 recorded by a Judicial Magistrate and extra judicial confessions made by the appellant before Panchayat on two different occasions.
8. To a question raised for the appellant, when Smt. Sulochana was admitted in the hospital on the 12th September, 1976 why it is only on 6th November, 1976 for the first time oral dying declaration is alleged to have been made by her to her father, grand mother and uncle etc, the answer given is that she remained unconscious during this period. The trial court disbelieved this fact on the basis o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
