SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ,
Kake Singh alias Surendra Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of M.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No, W of 1976
Decided on 2-4-1961.
Constitution of India,1950 – Indian penal code,1860 - Section 326 - Section 302 - Section 304- Acquittal - Appeal against conviction - Solitary evidence against appellant consists of dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased before Head Constable – Court have gone through the dying declaration and we find that dying declaration presents suspicious features - In first place had himself lodged a complaint before the police against accused that there was some dispute about house which Kake wanted to vacate and had given - Threats that be would come to serious harm if he does not vacate the house - Despite this threat according to dying declaration deceased readily agreed to take a round in jeep along with Kake and two others - Indeed in view of enmity it is hard to believe that deceased would trust accused and go with him at a late part of night and invite trouble for himself - Another important circumstance that throws doubt on the dying declaration is that Tulsi Baba was alleged to have been missing as would appear from report made before Police station by P. W. 3. doctor who held autopsy of deceased in his statement has not categorically stated that at time when deceased was burnt he was conscious or could give any coherent statement - Deceased was burnt and a good part of brain was also burnt land therefore the possibility is that he must have become unconscious - Cumulative effect of these circumstances therefore leads to the irresistible conclusion that deceased was unconscious and never made any such statement - Once dying declaration is disbelieved then there remains no legal evidence on basis of which the appellant could be convicted - Held, High Court had given the certificate mainly on ground that having regard to statement of deceased only offence that could have been made out would be one under S. 326 and not that under S. 304, Part II, I. P. C. if charge under S. 302 failed - It is riot necessary for us to go into this question because in view of fact that dying declaration cannot be accepted appellant is entitled to an acquittal - Appeal allowed
Key Points: - The sole evidence against the appellant is a dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased before a Head Constable (!) (!) . - The dying declaration presents suspicious features, including prior threats and the deceased's alleged readiness to accompany the accused despite enmity (!) (!) . - The deceased was found burnt with significant brain damage, raising doubt about his consciousness and ability to make a coherent statement (!) (!) . - Other injuries noted were not mentioned in the dying declaration, further undermining its reliability (!) . - The cumulative circumstances lead to the conclusion that the deceased was unconscious and did not make the alleged statement (!) . - Once the dying declaration is disbelieved, no legal evidence remains to support a conviction (!) . - The appellant is entitled to acquittal because the dying declaration cannot be accepted as valid evidence (!) (!) . - The appeal is allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the appellant is discharged (!) (!) . - The case is cited as AIR 1982 SC 1021 (!) .
JUDMENT
JUDGMENT :— This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which the appellant Kake Singh alias Surendra Singh was convicted under S. 304, Part II I. P. C. and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court had convicted the appellant under S. 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to death.
2. The solitary evidence against the appellant consists of the dying declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased Tulsi Baba before Head Constable D. N. Verma (P. W. 8). We have gone through the dying declaration and we find that the dying declaration presents suspicious features. In the first place, Tulsi Baba had himself lodged a complaint before the police against the accused that there was some dispute about the house which Kake wanted Tulsi Baba to vacate and had given. threats that be would come to serious harm if he does not vacate the house. Despite this threat, according to the dying declaration, the deceased readily agreed to take a round in the jeep along with Kake and two others. Indeed, in view of the enmity it is hard to believe that the deceased would trust the accused and go with him at a late part of the night and invite trouble for himself. Another important circumstance that throws doubt on the dying declaration is that Tulsi Baba was alleged to have been missing from Jan. 30, 1975, as would appear from the report made before the Police station by P. W. 3. The doctor who held the autopsy of the deceased in his statement has not categorically stated that at the time when the deceased was burnt he was conscious or could give any coherent statement. The deceased was burnt and a good part of the brain was also burnt land therefore the possibility is that he must have become unconscious. This is intrinsically supported by another important factor. The doctor found not only burns on the body of the deceased but also other injuries which could have been inflicted on him by lathis which had caused lacerations and haematoma. In his statement the deceased makes no mention at all of any such injuries although one of the injuries caused to him resulted in fracture of sternum. There is no reference at all to the manner in which deceased could have got the fracture of the sternum. The cumulative effect of these circumstances therefore leads to the irresistible conclusion that the deceased was unconscious and never made any such statement. Once the dying declaration is disbelieved, then there remains no legal evidence on the basis of which the appellant could be convicted.
3. The High Court had given the certificate mainly on the ground that having regard to the statement of the deceased, the only offence that could have been made out would be one under S. 326 and not that under S. 304, Part II, I. P. C. if the charge under S. 302 failed. It is riot necessary for us to go into this question because in view of the fact that the dying declaration cannot be accepted, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appellant is discharged from his bail-bonds and need not surrender.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1982 SC 1021
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.