1. Conviction under Section 302, IPC for murder — Appeal against death sentence — Admissibility of a dying declaration interrupted by death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 326
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.L.Kapur : M.Hidayatullah
Muniappan
Versus
State Of Madras
Case No. : 49 of 1961
Date of Decision : 9/27/61
Advocates Appeared: Iyer R.Ganapathy : Sen T.M. : Sethi V.N.
Advocates:
R.Ganapathy Iyer, T.M.SEN, V.N.Sethi
R.Ganapathy Iyer, T.M.SEN, V.N.Sethi
A dying declaration interrupted by death is admissible and may not require corroboration if the accusation is complete and there is no indication that the declarant intended to add further information.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Dying Declaration - Admissibility and probative value - Where a dying declaration is interrupted by the sudden death of the declarant, it is admissible if the accusation is complete and there is nothing to show that the maker wished to add more - Such a declaration, being categoric in character, may not always require corroboration. (Para 6)
(B) Dying Declaration - Thumb impression taken after death - While a thumb impression taken after the death of the declarant must be ignored, it does not necessarily invalidate the statement or imply a dishonest motive if the recording officer noted the fact of death before taking the impression. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murder after the deceased, who had a prior quarrel with the appellant, was found with stab wounds. The deceased identified the appellant as the assailant to a witness and subsequently made a statement to a police officer which was interrupted by his death. The police officer took the deceased's thumb impression after death. The appellant surrendered shortly after the incident, and a blood-stained knife and sheath were recovered. The appellant also had an injury on his thumb.
Findings of Court:
The dying declaration was categoric and unmistakably accused the appellant. The evidence, including the motive, the recovery of the weapon, the appellant's conduct in surrendering, and the initial statement made to a witness, was sufficient to warrant the conviction.
Issues: Whether a dying declaration that was interrupted by death is admissible in evidence and whether it requires corroboration if the accusation is complete.
Ratio Decidendi: A dying declaration is admissible and may not require corroboration if it is complete in its accusation and there is no evidence that the maker had anything further to add, distinguishing it from cases where the statement is incomplete and fails to identify the assailant.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the admissibility and probative value of a dying declaration on the grounds that it was incomplete and dishonestly completed after death. (Para 4 )
3. The dying declaration was complete in its accusation despite being interrupted by death; the post-mortem thumb impression was an error without dishonest motive. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. A dying declaration is admissible and may not require corroboration if it is complete in its accusation and there is no indication the maker had more to add. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction and death sentence upheld. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. When is a dying declaration that is interrupted by death admissible in evidence?
A dying declaration interrupted by death is admissible if the accusation against the accused is complete and there is no evidence to suggest the maker intended to add further information. (Para 6 )
7. Is corroboration always necessary for a dying declaration to sustain a conviction?
Corroboration is not always necessary if the dying declaration is complete in its accusation and there is nothing to show that the maker of the statement had anything further to add. (Para 6 )
8. Does taking a thumb impression on a dying declaration after the declarant's death render the entire statement inadmissible?
No. While the thumb impression taken after death must be ignored, the statement itself remains admissible if it was recorded while the declarant was alive, provided there was no improper or dishonest motive. (Para 4 )
M.HIDAYATULLAH, J.
(1) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the High court of Madras, with special leave granted by this court. The appellant was convicted under S. 302, 1. P. C. and sentenced to death for the murder of one Elumalai on 24/01/1960, at Kannankurichi. The facts of the case are simple:
(2) TWO days before this occurrence the appellant Muniappan & Elumalai had a quarrel at a tea-stall. Though the quarrel really was between the appellant and some others, Elumalai had intervened in that quarrel, and made some remarks about the appellant, and had advised the party opposite to him to make a complaint. Two reports of that incident were made, one by the appellant and the other by his rivals. On 24/01/1960, at about 12-30 p.m., P. W. 1 Muthuswami Udayar was having a bath when he heard Elumalai calling out to him "Mama". Muthuswami Udayar ran to the place from which this cry had come and found Elumalai with several stab wounds On his body. Muthuswami Udayar questioned Elumalai, and the latter told him that it was the appellant Muniappan who had caused injuries to him. Muthuswami gave first aid to Elumalai, and meanwhile Elian alias Kundaswami (P. W. 2) and K. R. Perumal (P. W. 3) also arrived on the scene. These persons carried Elumalai to the Police Station House which was at a distance of about 80 yards. The Sub-Inspector was seen approaching from the opposite direction ana Elumalai was taken to the verandah of the Police Station House. The Sub-Inspector immediately started recording the statement of Elumalai. After Elumalai had spoken one complete sentence, he could not speak any further, and though he was given some soda-water to .drink, it was found that he could not swallow it and had, in fact, died. The Sub-Inspector thereupon took the thumb-impression of Elumalai upon the statement as recorded, and four other witnesses also signed or put their thumb marks on-it. Muniappan also reached the .Police Station House after a few minutes and virtually surrendered himself to the police. One of his clothes, which was stained with blood, was seized and in one of his pockets was found a sheath which was also seized as presumably belonging to the knife with which the stab injuries were caused. Or a statement by Muniappan the Police went to a garden and recovered from there a knife which later was found to be stained with human blood. Investigation disclosed that this knife together with the sheath was purchased by Muniappan from Ameer Khan (P. W. 6) on the evening of 23/01/1960.
(3) THE police therefore charged Muniappan with an offence under S. 302, I. P. C. The evidence led against him consisted of the testimony of Ameer Khan (P. W. 6) about the purchase of the knife complete with a sheath for Rs. 6.00; the testimony of witnesses about the incident which took place two days before the murder; the dying declaration made to Muthuswami (P. W. 1); the dying declaration recorded by the Sub-Inspector in the presence of witnesses; an alleged statement made by the accused to the doctor when he was examined for an injury on his thumb and -the evidence of the alleged eye witness Elaan alias Kundaswami (P.W. 2). The two courts below convicted the appellant of the offence of murder and sentenced him to death.
(4) IN this appeal it is contended that the evidence of the eye witness (P.W. 2) and the statement of the appellant made to the Doctor, who examined him, having been excluded, there was not sufficient evidence in the case if the dying declaration recorded by the Sub-Inspector is excluded. The main argument in this case is, therefore, about the admissibility and the probative value of the dying declaration which is described as an incomplete document completed dishonestly by getting the thumb impression of Elumalai when he was dead. No doubt, the thumb impression of Elumalai was taken on the dying declaration after he was dead and to that extent the thumb impression must be ignored. We
