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

2011 Supreme(HP) 2412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Before (Division Bench)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J.
Cr. Appeal No. 713 of 2002 Date of Decision 12th October, 2011
State of H.P. Versus Parma Ram @ Prem Singh & another

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G.
For the Respondents:Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate viceMr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

The veracity of dying declarations, the requirement for corroborative evidence, and the special sanctity of dying declarations made by a person on the verge of death were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Dying Declaration - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 307, 302, 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 307, 302, 34 - The court considered the veracity of two dying declarations and the legal principles governing dying declarations. It emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for the dying declaration to inspire full confidence in its correctness. The court also highlighted the requirement for the deceased to be in a fit state of mind to make the declaration and the special sanctity of a dying declaration made by a person on the verge of death. The judgment cited relevant case laws to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, Nirmla Devi, sustained burn injuries and subsequently died. The prosecution alleged that the accused were responsible for causing her death by setting her on fire. The deceased made two dying declarations, naming different individuals as responsible for her injuries.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dying declarations were at total variance and lacked corroboration. It noted inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses and the deceased, as well as the changing stand of the deceased in the two declarations. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues: Veracity of dying declarations, requirement for corroborative evidence, fit state of mind of the deceased, inconsistencies in witness statements and dying declarations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for the dying declaration to inspire full confidence in its correctness. It highlighted the requirement for the deceased to be in a fit state of mind to make the declaration and the special sanctity of a dying declaration made by a person on the verge of death.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the prosecution's case. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents were discharged.

JUDGEMENT

Dev Darshan Sud, J.(oral) This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 29.6.2002 acquitting the respondents who were charged for offences under Sections 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”).

2.The prosecution case is that both the accused- respondents were responsible for causing death of Nirmla Devi by entering her house and setting her on fire on the intervening night of 8/9.4.1997 as a consequence she sustained burn injuries and succumbed to her death at Udhampur hospital on 2.6.1997 where her husband had taken her for medical treatment.

3.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.4.1997 PW5 Dr. Chaman Lal Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sujanpur informed the police that a patient suffering burn injuries had been admitted in the hospital by her brother Baldev Singh and others. He conveyed this information telephonically as well as by writing to the Station House Officer, Sujanpur Teehra. He examined her and issued MLC Ext.PW5/A and records in the certificate that she has been brought to the hospital on 13.4.1997 at around 4 P.M. with multiple burn injuries. He found that she had 3rd and 4th degree burn injuries and percentage of burn was 82%. The injuries were found to be grievous in nature caused within probable duration of 3 to 7 days. When he examined the deceased, she was found conscious, cooperative, normal speech, memory normal and well oriented to time and place. Her pupils were reacting to light normally, but the patient was in agony. He also obtained the signatures of Nirmala Devi on the certificate at mark ‘A’. At around 4.45 PM on that day, Ext.PW5/B an application was filed by the police asking for his opinion as to whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement. He made an endorsement:Sd/- (Doctor) 13.4.1997 4.45 PM” Thereafter, statement Ext.PW6/A was recorded by PW7 Ashok Kumar ASI, who was posted as an Investigating Officer at Police Station Sujanpur Teehra. He received a telephonic message from Dr. Chaman Lal PW5 and immediately rushed to the hospital and moved an application Ext.PW5/B to seek the opinion of the doctor as to whether the injured was in fit state to make a statement. Thereafter, he recorded her statement Ext.PW6/A which was admitted to be correct according to what she had stated and she had signed it. This was attested by the Pradhan, PW12 Varinder Gram Panchayat Sujanpur Teehra. He then says that he made an endorsement on the statement and sent it to Police Station Jawalamukhi for registration of the case. At the time when her statement was recorded, her husband Pritam Singh was not present, but other relations were present there. PW12 Shri Varinder, Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Dera was also present there.

4.According to her statement, she was married to Pritam Singh who is serving in the Indian Army and was not present in the house on that day. They had no issue from the marriage and therefore, she had adopted a girl child about three years ago. She was living alone in the house as she does not have any brother-in-law or father-in-law etc. Then she states that she had a dispute with Pruvi Ram of the village with respect to some land. On 7.4.1997 she had gone to Purvi Ram and admonished him as to why he was digging her land. He became incensed and told her that she could do what she wanted. He also told her that her husband wanted to perform second marriage because she did not bear any child from him. She says that for the last about three years her husband has been telling her that he wanted to get married again, which was causing great mental anguish to her. On 8.4.1997 at night she was sleeping when Parma Ram accused, his wife came to her house and inquired about her welfare and told her that she could get medicine injected. Then after half/quarter of an hour, two people entered her house and gagged her. She became sca











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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top