Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 323
2002(2) Supreme 224
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
R.P. Sethi and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Shambhu -Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2000
Decided on 6-3-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Tripurari Ray and Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Anoop G. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan and Satish K. Agnihotri, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Sessions Judge disbelieved the dying declaration on flimsy grounds based on irrelevant considerations. Moreover, there has been material corroboration. The High Court has rightly reversed the judgment of the Sessions Court.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Sessions Court acquitting the appellant-High Court in appeal, reversing acquittal of appellant-Relied on dying declaration recorded by PW-9/Executive Magistrate and other corroborative evidence-Sessions Court whether disbelieved dying declaration on flimsy and irrelevant considerations ? (Yes)-Is it corroborated in material particulars? (Yes)-Result-High Court rightly reversed the judgment as against appellant-Appeal dismissed.
Held : We have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We do not think that the High Court has erred in finding the appellant guilty of murder. Even if the evidence of PW-2 is eschewed, there is convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that the appellant was responsible for the murder of the deceased Sunder Bai. PW-9, the Executive Magistrate, got intimation from the Police that deceased Sunder Bai was admitted in the hospital and that her dying declaration was to be recorded. He reached the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Sunder Bai. The evidence of PW-9 shows that when he recorded the dying declaration the doctor was present and he had certified that Sunder Bai was in a fit state to make the statement. The dying declaration was recorded in the form of question-answers. It was recorded at 10.45 PM on 28.6.1986. (Para 9)
The Sessions Judge disbelieved the dying declaration on flimsy grounds based on irrelevant considerations. Whether the Executive Magistrate reached the hospital in a scooter or any other conveyance or whether the Magistrate had noted the percentage of burn injuries on the body of the deceased are irrelevant matters which should not have weighed with the Sessions Judge in disbelieving the dying declaration. (Para 11)
In the instant case, there has been material corroboration, in the sense that deceased Sunder Bai was found with burn injuries near the house of the appellant. PW-2 saw the deceased near the house of the appellant and it was from that place that the deceased was removed to the hospital. PW-1, husband of the deceased Sunder Bai, also deposed that on hearing about the incident, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased with bum injuries. The High Court considered all this evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence of murder. The way in which the learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the instant case shows that the evidence was not viewed from the correct perspective. The High Court has rightly reversed the Judgment of the Sessions Court. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. (Paras 14 & 15)
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-Appellant-Shambhu and his wife Sadhna Bai were tried by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Madhya Pradesh, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Against the present appellant, there was also a charge under Section 376 IPC. The Sessions Judge found them not guilty and acquitted of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court found the present appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC, for having caused the death of one Sunder Bai and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The finding of the High Court is challenged before us.
2. The prosecution case is that on 28th June, 1986, deceased Sunder Bai went to the house of appellant Shambhu requesting him to repay the sum of Rs. 1,000/- entrusted by her with the appellant. The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant committed rape on Sunder Bai and thereafter, the appellant s wife, Sadhna Bai poured kerosene oil on the body of Sunder Bai and the appellant set fire to her. PW-2, Amritlal, having reached Prianko colony on a bicycle, heard the sound of "bachao, bachao" (help, help) and went near the house of appellant-Shambhu. He saw the deceased Sunder Bai set on fire by appellant-Shambhu. Hearing the sounds, many other people collected there and some of them took Sunder Bai to hospital. In the meantime, the husband of the deceased Sunder Bai also reached the place of incident. PW-2, Amritlal, went to the Police Station and gave Ex. P-1 report. PW-10, Mohan Singh, S.H.O. Police Station Annapurna, visited the place of incident in the night of 26th June itself. He also visited the M.Y. Hospital where the deceased was admitted with burn injuries. PW-10 sent a requisition to the Executive Magistrate, PW-9, for recording dying declaration of the deceased. PW-9, Executive Magistrate, reached the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of deceased Sunder Bai. Subsequently, Sunder Bai died while undergoing treatment in the hospital and her body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Ten witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and the main items of evidence relied on by the prosecution were the evidence of PW-2 and the dying declaration allegedly made by deceased Sunder Bai, which was recorded by PW-9, the Executive Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the reasons that the First Information Report was recorded belatedly and there were a series of discrepancies in Ex. P-1 F.I. Statement and that the dying declaration recorded by PW-9 was not reliable as there was no satisfactory evidence to show that Sunder Bai was in a fit state to give the dying declaration. Learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved PW-9 on the ground that he was not in a position to state the percentage of the burn injuries on the body of the deceased Sunder Bai; he had not brought the memorandum received from the police station; and that he did not verify whether the doctor had given sedatives to the deceased. PW-9 was also disbelieved on the ground that he deposed that he reached the hospital in a scooter whereas the Police inspector had deposed otherwise.
3. The High Court, in appeal, reversed the finding of the Sessions Judge and held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that appellant-Shambhu had caused the death of deceased Sunder Bai. The High Court held that the dying declaration was reliable and that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-9.
4. The counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court seriously erred in reversing the acquittal of the appellant, and as the trial court had taken a reasonable view of the evidence, the High Court should not have reversed the findings of the Sessions Judge.
5. This Court, in Surjan & Ors. vs. State of Rajas
