SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Cal) 555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, JJ.
Sk. Saber Ali @ Apel - Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. No. 808 of 2008 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 05-12-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Tapas Ghosh, Tanmoy Chowdhury, Avishek Chakraborty, Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mainak Gupta

The dying declaration was upheld as admissible and reliable, and the accused's avoidance of answering questions during the trial was considered in light of the principle underlying the admissibility of dying declaration and the responsibility of the accused to explain the situation known only to him.

Headnote:

Dying Declaration - Offence under Sections 498A/302, Indian Penal Code - 498A, 302 - The judgment discusses the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration, emphasizing that there is no prescribed format for recording a dying declaration and that it is not obligatory for it to be in question-answer form. The court upholds the dying declaration as a good piece of evidence, stating that it is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence complained of. The judgment also highlights the principle underlying the admissibility of dying declaration, 'Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire' (a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth), and the responsibility of the accused to explain the situation when certain facts are known only to the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The victim, Sajema Bibi, was admitted to the hospital with burn injuries and made a dying declaration accusing her husband of setting her on fire. The accused denied the allegations and avoided answering questions during the trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty based on the admissible and reliable dying declaration, emphasizing the principle that a dying man will not lie and the accused's responsibility to explain the situation known only to him.

Issues: The admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration, the accused's avoidance of answering questions during the trial, and the responsibility of the accused to explain the situation known only to him.

Ratio Decidendi: The dying declaration was upheld as a good piece of evidence, and the accused's avoidance of answering questions during the trial was considered in light of the principle underlying the admissibility of dying declaration and the responsibility of the accused to explain the situation known only to him.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of conviction were upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Sahidullah Munshi, J.

1. This appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 11th September, 2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum, in Sessions Trial No.1 of 2005, is at the instance of the accused, Sk. Saber Ali @ Sk. Apel, whereby the accused/appellant was found guilty of offence under Sections 498A/302, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, in default to pay fine, suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and further sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid Sessions case arose from a written complaint by Majed Ali (PW 1) on 6th December, 2005 on the basis of which formal FIR (Ext. 11) was registered by Suri Police being FIR No.41/05 dated 30th March, 2005 under Sections 498A/326/307, Indian Penal Code.

2. In course of investigation Section 302 was added by the Investigating Officer subsequently and the case was committed for trial before the Sessions Judge, Suri, District – Birbhum. After the FIR was registered, investigation proceeded and Police examined available witnesses under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. The de facto complainant, Majed Ali stated in his written complaint that about nine years ago marriage took place between his daughter Ms. Sajema Bibi with Saber Ali, son of Alauddin Sk. of Dhalla according to Muslim rites and customs. After marriage both lived happily and resulting thereby two children were born. On various demands physical and mental tortures were inflicted upon the victim, Sajema Bibi and complaints were made at different levels. On 29th March, 2005, the accused put fire on the body of the complainant’s daughter with kerosene oil which was informed to him over telephone by some miscreants and came to know the truth when he reached Suri Sadar Hospital where the victim was admitted. Certain dates in this matter are very relevant, that is to say, the alleged incident of burning took place on 29th March, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. On 30th March, 2005 at 12:25 hours FIR was lodged by the de facto complainant under Sections 498A/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code added with Section 302, IPC subsequently. On 30th March, 2005 in between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m. alleged dying declaration of the victim was recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate, Suri Sadar, Birbhum. On 4th April, 2005, victim died at hospital at about 10:20 p.m.

4. Record reveals that the appellant surrendered before the learned Court below on 4th April, 2005 and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge wherefrom the same was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum. Time to time, his prayer for bail was rejected.

5. As many as 18 witnesses were produced by the Prosecution and in short, their depositions are noted below:

“PW 1, Majed Ali, the de facto complainant deposed that Sajema Bibi, victim, was his daughter and was admitted to hospital after having a burn injury. His daughter died on 22nd Chaitra, 1411 B.S., that is, seven days after her admission at the hospital. He deposed – “My daughter since deceased told me that her husband setting fire by pouring kerosene on her.” He further deposed – “during her life time torture was inflicted on her owing to reason for more dowry which my daughter did convey to me. and as a result of failure to meet their demand she was persecuted. Perhaps four years before of my daughter’s death I lodged a written complaint before Suri P.S. about cruelty of torture which my daughter had to face. I also informed about to that to the member named Fatik Bayan of Alunda Gram Panchayat, who gave me a written document with an advi
































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top