2009 Supreme(SC) 756

2009(3) Supreme 360
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Kanti Lal — Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1133 of 2001
with
Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2001
Decided on : 17-04-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Conditions for a dying declaration to be valid and ingredients of section 304B, IPC discussed.

Headnote:(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – For placing implicit reliance on dying declaration, court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to narrate the correct facts of occurrence – The dying declaration should be voluntary and should not be prompted – Physical as well as mental fitness of the maker is to be proved by the prosecution. (Para 21)

        (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – Fit state of mind should be certified by the doctor either separately or by endorsement on the dying declaration – The dying declaration should immediately be sealed by the Magistrate recording it – The dying declaration should also record the preliminary questions and replies thereto – It should also bear endorsement to the effect that it was read over and explained to the deceased. (Para 22)

        (2004) 10 SCC 192; (1985) 4 SCC 476 – Relied upon.

        (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – It is one thing for an accused to attack a dying declaration in a case where the prosecution seeks to rely on it against him – But it is altogether different where the accused relies upon a dying declaration in support of the defence of accidental death – The burden on the accused is much lighter – He has only to prove reasonable probability. (Para 23)

        (2004) 10 SCC 589 – Relied upon.

        (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – The statement of a person “as to any of the circumstances which resulted in his death” must have some close and proximate relation with the actual occurrence – Source of production of dying declaration should be proved and mentioned in the court’s judgment. (Para 25)

        (1972) 3 SCC 361; (2000) 5 SCC 207 – Relied upon.

        (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304B – Ingredients necessary for application of the provision culled out. (Para 31)

        (1998) 3 SCC 309; (2003) 8 SCC 80; (2005) 2 SCC 388; (2006) 10 SCC 115; (2006) 10 SCC 681; (2006) 12 SCC 667; (2007) 9 SCC 721 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. Smt. Laxmi was married to Arvind Kumar [A-1]. After the marriage, Laxmi had lived a happy and peaceful life in her parents-in-law’s house for about one year, but soon thereafter made repeated complaints in regard to ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her at the hands of the accused for not bringing sufficient dowry.

        2. About two years after her marriage when Laxmi was pregnant her husband (A-1) and his elder brother [A-3] had demanded loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from him for starting some business, which amount he had paid to them. Smt. Laxmi was blessed with a male child.

        3. The accused told the complainant – Father of Laxmi – that the loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- borrowed by A-1 and A-3 from him will be treated as dowry amount.

        4. In the early morning of the day of incident, it was revealed to the complainant that Smt. Laxmi had been admitted to Raniwada Hospital as she was suffering from stomach pain. In the hospital he found her daughter with burn wounds on her body. She was transferred to another hospital but she succumbed to the injuries on way.

        5. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC and sentenced them.

        6. The learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 40 of the judgment directed higher officers of PW-11 Dr. Vasudev, PW-12 Shaitan Singh - Station House Officer and DW-2 - Arvind Kumar Sengwa - Naib Tehsildar to take disciplinary action against them for not discharging their official duties properly and diligently.

        7. The accused filed S. B. Criminal Appeal, whereas Arvind Kumar Sengwa [DW-2] – Naib Tehsildar filed S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition praying for expunging of the adverse observations made in paragraph 40 of the judgment.

        8. The High Court dismissed the appeal of A-1 and A-3, whereas the appeal of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 was allowed and their conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge has been set aside. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by Arvind Kumar Sengwa [DW-2] - Naib Tehsildar has been dismissed.

       Finding of the Court :

        There is no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Judges of the High Court to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.