SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 230

2004(2) Supreme 273
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Nallam Veera Stayanandam and Ors. -Appellants
versus
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 920 of 1997
Decided on 24-2-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.S. Narasimha, Potaraju Sridhar, Ananga Bhattacharya, G. Seshagiri, V.G. Pragasam, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
In cases where there are more than one dying declaration, it is duty of Court to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflected true state of affairs.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304B and 498A-Dowry death-Conviction of appellant husband and his parents-Deceased was daughter of sister of appellant husband-Appeal-Evidence of parents of deceased proved that appellants were demanding dowry and were harassing deceased on that demand-Death took place within 7 years of marriage and presumption u/s 113B of Evidence Act was available to prosecution-Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate in hospital stated that deceased sustained burns by accident while cooking food-2nd dying declaration recorded by Head Constable on same day stated that deceased committed suicide-Trial Court and High Court found 1st dying declaration liable to be ignored as made in confusion and affection towards husband and in-laws who were her grand parents-Finding based on inferences was unsustainable-No reason to ignore dying declaration recorded by Magistrate-Conviction u/s 304B IPC could not be sustained-Conviction u/s 498A IPC however was liable to be confirmed with 2 years imprisonment. (Paras 7 to 10)

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32-Two dying declarations one recorded by Magistrate and 2nd recorded by police-In case of multiple dying declaration each will have to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value-One cannot be rejected because of contents of the other-It is duty of Court to consider each in its correct perspective and satisfy itself which one of them reflected true state of affairs. (Para 7)

       

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The appellants before us were charged of offences punishable under section 304B and 498A IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 and 2 years respectively by the by the Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. Said conviction and sentence of the appellants came to be confirmed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by the impugned judgment. Now they are in appeal before us Prosecution case necessary for disposal of this appeal is as follows:

2. The first appellant before us is the son of appellant Nos.2 and 3 while appellant No.2 is the husband of appellant No.3. The first appellant was married to one Aruna Kumari which took place on 18.5.1990. It is the prosecution case that Aruna Kumari was the daughter of the sister of A-1. Thus, in reality Aruna Kumari had married her own maternal uncle. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellants were constantly making demand from the parents of Aruna Kumari which, inter alia, included 1/3rd share in a house belonging to the parents of Aruna Kumari. Thus, the appellants were constantly harassing said Aruna Kumari. The prosecution in support of its case relating to harassment relied upon Ex. P-4 to P-6 - letters written by Aruna Kumari between 12th May and 5th August, 1991. Prosecution also relies upon a Panchayat Ex. P-8 which took place and an agreement Ex. P-9 executed by the accused 1 and 2 undertaking to look after Aruna Kumari properly and not to harass her. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 12.7.1992 at about 3 p.m. deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself afire due to which she suffered severe burn injuries. She was then taken to Government Hospital, Kothapeta, where noticing her condition the doctor sent a requisition to the Munsif Magistrate to make arrangements to record her dying declaration. Consequent to this request the Munsif Magistrate, PW-13 proceeded to the Government Hospital and recorded the dying declaration Ex. P-28 at about 5.30 p.m. He states that before recording he asked the opinion of the doctor PW-10 whether the patient was in a fit condition to make a declaration and on being told that she was in a fit condition, he started recording her declaration. He states that while recording the said statement, he asked the Police and others attending on the patient to leave the room and he recorded her statement in a question and answer form. A perusal of this document Ex. P-28 shows that the deceased stated that she suffered the burn injuries accidentally because of a stove burst while she was preparing tea. There is nothing in this dying declaration to indicate even remotely that she committed suicide.

3. Soon after this dying declaration was recorded, PW-11 who was then working as a Head Constable in Kothapeta Police Station, having received an intimation from the hospital, proceeded to the hospital and recorded another statement of the deceased marked as Ex P-25. This statement also contains a certificate of PW-10 as to the condition of the patient to make a declaration. As per this dying declaration, the deceased stated that on being unable to bear the dowry demand and harassment meted out by her husband and in-laws, she poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze, consequent to which she suffered burn injuries. From the record it is seen that Aruna Kumari died at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day. During the course of investigation the prosecution examined nearly 14 witnesses out of whom PWs 1 to 5 and 7 speak to the demand of dowry made by the appellants as also the harassment meted out to the deceased. Prosecution has also produced Ex. P-4 to 7 - letters written by the deceased to her parents narrating the nature of dowry demand as also the harassment. Ex. P8 is a Memorandum drawn up by the Panchayatdars calling upon the appellants to give an undertaking to treat the deceased properly. Ex. P-9 is an undertaking given by A-1












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top