Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. S. Pathak and Amarendra Nath Sen, JJ.
Ramawati Devi
versus
State of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1975
Decided on 5-1-1983
For the Appellant: M/s. Devendra N. Goburdhan and D. Goburdhan Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. N. Jha, Advocate.
Held a statement, written or oral, made by a person who is dead as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question, becomes admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act. Such statement made by the deceased is commonly termed as dying declaration. There is no requirement of law that such a statement must necessarily be made to a Magistrate. What evidentiary value or weight has to be attached to such statement, must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In a proper case, it may be permissible to convict a person only on the basis of a dying declaration in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the dying declaration has been properly proved. It is significant to note that in the course of cross-examination of the witness proving the dying declaration, no questions were put as to the state of health of the deceased and no suggestion was made that the deceased was not in a fit state of health to make any such statement. The Doctor's evidence also clearly indicates that it was possible for the deceased to make the statement attributed to her in the dying declaration in which her thumb impression had also been affixed. In the instant case, it cannot also be said that there is no corroborative evidence of the statement contained in the dying declaration. The evidence of PWs. 1, 4, 5 and 8 clearly corroborates the statement recorded in the dying declaration. We do not find any material on record on the basis of which the testimony of these witnesses can be disbelieved. It may also be noticed that none of these witnesses including the Police Officer who recorded the statement could be attributed with any kind of ill- feeling against the accused. The High Court has elaborately dwelt on this aspect and has carefully considered all the materials on record and also the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court and in our opinion the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellant. (Para 7)
A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 953 and A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1194.
JUDGMENT
Amarendra Naih Sen, J.- The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, Arrah. Against his etc. conviction, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court at Patna. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 12-2-1975 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant. Against the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal with special leave granted by this Court.
2. The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated. On 30-10- 1967 at about 5 a.m. Sabitri Devi deceased, (for whose murder the appellant has been convicted), of vil1age pakri, Police Station Bihiya had gone to the house of the appellant who is also the resident of the same village to take back her ornaments and a sum of Rs. 500/- in cash which Sabitri Devi had kept with the appellant for safe custody during the temporary absence of Sabitri Devi's mother. The appellant refused to return the ornaments and the cash which were said to be kept in her safe custody and it is alleged that the sprinkled kerosene oil on the clothes of Sabitri Devi and set fire to the same. Sabitri Devi thereafter started running in flames towards her house and fell down on the road. While running she had been screaming and shouting that the appellant had not returned the ornaments and cash when demanded and had set fire to her clothes after sprinkling kerosene oil on the same. Sabitri Devi was thereafter removed to Arrah Sadar Hospital where Assistant Inspector of Police attached to Arrah Police Station recorded the statement of Sabitri Devi. This Fard-beyan of Sabitri Devi was sent to Bihiya Police Station. Sabitri Devi died in the Arrah Sadar Hospital on that very day at 9-30 a.m. There was the usual commitment enquiry under Chapter 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Magistrate who conducted the enquiry committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions to stand her trial there.
3. The appellant was charged with the murder of Sabitri Devi under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the Sessions Court the prosecution examined nine witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the statement made by Sabitri Devi to the Assistant Inspector of Police which, has been recorded and which was treated as the dying declaration of Sabitri Devi and the testimony of five witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1,4, 5, 7 and 8 who had seen Sabitri Devi running in flames and heard the screams and utterances of Sabitri Devi, found that the prosecution case had been proved beyond doubt and held the appellant guilty and convicted her under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. On appeal the High Court agreed with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and hold that the appellant had been rightly convicted and dismissed the appeal.
5. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the main contention of the appellant appears to have been that the case of the prosecution had not been properly established. It appears that the very same arguments were advanced before the High Court. The main argument before the High Court was that the Sessions Judge went clearly wrong in placing any reliance on the statement alleged to have been made by Sabitri Devi to the Police Officer and recorded by the police officer. It was argued before the High Court that no reliance could be placed on the said statement which was considered to be the dying declaration of the deceased as the statement had not been made to a Magistrate but to a Police Officer and the facts and circumstances of the case would indicate that Sabitri Devi was not in a fit condition to make any statement at all. It had been further argued that there was no corroborative evidence of the said statement and in the absence of any corroboration of the dying declaration, conviction of the appellant only on the basis of the dying declaration could not be justified. The High Court in its judgment had carefully co
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
