Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Debasish Paul & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Amal Boral - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6565 of 2023
Decided on : 18-10-2023
A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Multiple dying declarations – Primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in a fit state of mind – All dying declarations should be consistent – Inconsistencies between such statements should be ‘material’ for its credibility to be shaken – Each declaration must be scrutinized on its own merits – In presence of inconsistencies, medical fitness of person making such declaration, at relevant time, assumes importance along with other factors such as possibility of tutoring by relatives, etc. – A dying declaration is not to be discarded on account of brevity, but it must contain proximate cause of deceased’s condition and reason therefor. (Paras 9.1 to 9.7 and 17)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – There is no particular identification of convict-appellant, nor is there a mention of means through which injuries were inflicted (Petrol) – General rule for appreciation of evidence rendered by an interested witness is that same should be corroborated by other independent evidence – Considering nature of statement made by deceased to mother, independent corroboration is difficult – Reliance on the same would prejudice convict-appellant, and same cannot be justified – Convict-appellant was not seen at spot of crime, nor has last seen theory been invoked by prosecution – Apart from alleged dying declarations of deceased, there is no evidence on record to point to guilt of convict-appellant – Placing gauntlet of guilt upon convict-appellant based on dying declarations when no other material particulars, apart from his name, could be elicited therefrom would be unjustified – Appeal allowed. (Paras 17, 26, 30, 34, 35 and 36)
(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of interested witnesses is not necessarily unreliable evidence – Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony – It cannot be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can only form basis of conviction if corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence – All that is necessary is that evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution – Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or close relative to deceased if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. (Paras 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal impugns a judgment and order of conviction passed by High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2009 dated 31st May 2010, confirming Appellant’s sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 , as awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide Judgment dated 30th April 2009.
Findings of Court:
When considering other circumstances that may or may not point to guilt of convict-appellant, we find gaps unexplained in prosecution case, which cast sufficient doubt as to leave case short of threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Respondent is stated to have been inducted as a tenant in respect of shop No. AC 249, Rabindrapally, Krishnapur, Post Office Prafulla Kanan, Police Station Baguiati, Kolkata – 700101, District 24 Parganas (North) at an agreed rent of Rs.352/-per month of which the appellants are the landlords. It is the say of the appellants that the respondent stopped paying the rent from February 2005, and on that account ultimately a notice was served on 31.10.2013 on the respondent to vacate the premises. Soon thereafter, the appellants filed a suit for eviction, being title Suit No.667/2013 against the respondent-tenant for non-payment of rent.
2. In the proceedings, the respondent made an application under Sections 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). The application was rejected by the Trial Court vide a judgment dated 11.09.2018 on the ground that the respondent had entered appearance in the suit on 09.02.2016 but filed the application only on 14.12.2016 i.e., after a delay of ten months.
3. The application, not being filed within the statutory period of one month, was, thus, rejected. No application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. The respondent, aggrieved, by the same preferred a Civil Revision before the High Court and in terms of the judgment dated 21.08.2019, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 11.09.2018 and granted liberty to the respondent-tenant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 explaining the circumstances causing the delay for the purpose with the prayer for condonation of delay in support of the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act already filed.
5. We may notice that the ground sought to be made out by the respondent-tenant was that his failure to deposit arrears of rent coupled with monthly rent was on account of ill-advise by his advocate that no steps were required to be taken in view of the stay granted by the High Court in C.O. No.233/2006. The respondent claimed that having become cognizant of this, he made amends by filing the written statement on 14.12.2016 along with the application under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the said Act, which was rejected. The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, if any, filed within the stipulated period mentioned without granting any unnecessary adjournments and preferably within two months from the date of filing of the application.
6. Notice was issued in the SLP and thereafter leave was granted.
Relevant Provisions
7. In order to appreciate the contours of the arguments, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the said Act and the Limitation Act as under:
Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963
“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. — Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation — The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.” ….…. …. …. …. ….
Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
“40. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings and appeals. – Subject to the provisions of this Act relating to limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to proceedings and appeals under this Act.”
….…. …. …. …. ….
Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997
“7. When a tenant can get t
(1) Multiple dying declarations – All dying declarations should be consistent – Inconsistencies between such statements should be ‘material’ for its credibility to be shaken.(2) General rule for appr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 are mandatory and required to be scrupulously fo....
The court affirmed that compliance with mandatory timelines in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act is essential for tenants to avoid eviction due to non-payment of rent.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the statutory provisions outlined in Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the inapplicability o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, and the inapplicability of Section 5 of the Limi....
Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked for condoning delays in applications under Section 7(2) of the W.B.P.T. Act, as compliance with specific statutory requirements is mandatory.
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
