Back
2009(2) Supreme 821
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
State of Rajasthan — Appellant
versus
Champa Lal — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 305-306/2003
Decided on : 01-04-2009
Facts of the case :
1. Respondent accused was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. Trial Court convicted accused for said offence. On appeal, High Court acquitted respondent.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the court :
High Court placed reliance on decision in case of Munna Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh to discourage practice of investigation officer himself recording dying declaration. However nothing in said decision to show that whenever investigating officer records dying declaration same has to be kept out of consideration. Categorical observation was made in case of Dalip Singh v. State of Rajasthan that in case there was no time or facility available to prosecution for adopting any better method, dying declaration recorded by investigating officer can be taken into consideration. Categorical statement of Pw 20 in the instant case that it was not possible to get a Magistrate to record dying declaration. High Court disbelieved him without even recording any reason therefore. Apart from that, Rajasthan Police Rules, 1964 on which High Court had placed reliance was at the most a set of procedural guidelines which could not take away effect of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act. Impugned judgment of acquittal passed by High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves the prosecution of a respondent accused of causing the death of his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted him, leading to an appeal by the State (!) (!) .
The primary evidence in question was the dying declaration made by the deceased, which the trial court relied upon for conviction. The High Court, however, discredited this dying declaration on the grounds that it was not recorded in accordance with applicable police rules, leading to the acquittal (!) .
The Supreme Court emphasized that when no time or facility is available for the prosecution to adopt a better method, a dying declaration recorded by an investigating officer can be considered valid. The Court clarified that such declarations are admissible under evidence law and that procedural guidelines cannot override the statutory provisions (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the witness responsible for recording the dying declaration stated that it was not possible to get a Magistrate to record it, and the High Court disbelieved this statement without providing reasons. This was considered an error, as the absence of a Magistrate does not automatically invalidate the dying declaration if other conditions for reliability are met (!) (!) .
The evidence from the doctor present during the recording of the declaration, as well as corroborative testimonies from other witnesses, supported the credibility of the dying declaration. The Court highlighted that the declaration was made in a fit state of mind and under circumstances that justified its consideration (!) (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that the procedural guidelines of police rules are merely procedural and do not supersede the provisions of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of dying declarations. The High Court’s conclusion that no other reliable evidence existed was found to be flawed, as there was substantial corroborative evidence supporting the declaration (!) .
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of the respondent and restored the conviction of the trial court, emphasizing the importance of considering dying declarations recorded under appropriate circumstances when no better options are feasible (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that the absence of a Magistrate’s recording does not automatically disqualify a dying declaration, provided other conditions for its reliability are satisfied, and that procedural guidelines should not override substantive legal provisions (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1. The State of Rajasthan has filed appeals against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowing the appeal filed by the respondent directing his acquittal. Respondent faced trial for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Jodhpur.
2. Background facts in a nutshell as projected by the prosecution are as follows:
On 11.12.1995 at about 10.30 p.m. Om Prakash (PW-8) submitted a written report at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur stating inter-alia that his sister Smt. Pani Devi was married to respondent about twenty five years back. From their wedlock five girls and one boy were born. His sister used to earn a livelihood and maintain the children. Respondent used to go for earning casually. Respondent used to demand money from her for consuming liquor. Respondent also used to harass and beat her. On the fateful day, when she returned from her job, respondent was consuming liquor. Respondent abused his sister Pani Devi saying that she was keeping a number of paramours and she used to stay with them during day hours. “TUNE DAS HAATI BANA RAKKHE HAIN, DIN BHAR UNKE SAATH RAHTI HAI.” (You have a number of friends and throughout the day, you stay with them.) He locked the children in one room. Thereafter, the respondent poured kerosene on her and with intention to kill her, threw a burning matchstick. His sister made hue and cry, which attracted a number of people including Pappu Ram (PW-7). Having seen the incident, Pappu Ram rushed to his house and narrated the incident. At that time, his cousin Doonger Singh (PW-6) was also sitting with him. They rushed to the house of respondent and found that his sister Pani Devi was burning and lying in a pit. She was taken out of the pit by Prakash (PW- 18), brother of respondent. The fire was extinguished. On enquiry, deceased Pani Devi narrated the incident. She was taken for treatment to the M.G. Hospital. On this information, police registered a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC and proceeded with investigation. At 10:40 p.m., Joga Ram (PW-20), SHO Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur recorded the statement of Smt. Pani Devi in the M.G. Hospital in the presence of Dr. M.K. Parihar (PW-13). She died on 12.12.1995 at 4:10 a.m. The police prepared the site plan, inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem. The post mortem was conducted by a Board of three doctors. The Board found it to be a case of hundred percent burn. In the opinion of the Board, the cause of death was shock due to extensive burns. After usual investigation police laid charge sheet against the respondent for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Trial was held as accused abjured guilt. Trial Court relied upon the dying declaration and held the accused guilty. In appeal, High Court directed acquittal. The High Court observed that the dying declaration on which the prosecution relied and which the trial Court found to be the basis of conviction was not in accordance with applicable Police Rules relating to recording of dying declaration. Therefore, the same was to be kept out of consideration. Only on the basis of that the acquittal was directed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the authenticity of the dying declaration having not been doubted, acquittal is indefensible.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
5. It is to be noted that a decision of this Court in Munna Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 (1976 (3) SCC 104), on which High Court placed reliance related to the efficacy of investigating officer himself recording the dying declaration and the necessity to discourage the practice. There is nothing in the decision to show that whenever the investigating officer records the dying declaration t
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
