Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath, JJ.
Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 600 of 2015
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Dying Declaration - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 307, Section 326/34 - The court discussed the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration, emphasizing the principles relating to its recording and its credibility. The court found that the dying declaration in this case was not reliable due to lack of corroboration and doubts regarding the mental and physical state of the declarant. The judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on a dying declaration made by the deceased, who had suffered acid burns and subsequently died.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration was not reliable due to lack of corroboration and doubts regarding the mental and physical state of the declarant. As a result, the judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside.
Issues: The primary issue was the reliability of the dying declaration as the basis for the appellant's conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles relating to the recording of dying declarations and their admissibility and reliability. It highlighted the need for corroboration and the importance of ensuring the declarant's fit state of mind at the time of making the statement.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction dated 6.7.2015 and order of sentence dated 13.7.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 6.7.2015 and order of sentence dated 13.7.2015, passed by Shri Vishnu Kant Sahay, learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 18 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he is to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The fardbeyan of Lalita Devi was recorded on 17.6.2013, in which it has been stated that her marriage was solemnized about three months back. After her marriage, she had gone to her matrimonial house and about 15 days back she had come back to her parents’ house and she is staying there. She has alleged that today i.e. 17.06.2013, her father had gone to the market while her mother had gone to bring firewood and she was alone in the house busy in stitching cloths when at about 3 P.M. her brother in law Sunil Yadav had come on a Sumo vehicle with her parents and others. She has further alleged that Sunil Yadav had slapped her and when she protested he had poured acid over her, as a result of which she suffered grievous injuries. When she started crying out loud on account of the immense pain, the accused persons fled away in their Sumo vehicle.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 132 of 2013 was instituted against eight accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 307, 326/34 IPC. After the death of the informant-Lalita Devi, Section 302 IPC was added. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Sunil Kumar Yadav and Anil Kumar Yadav while investigation continued against the rest six accused persons. After cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 18 of 2014. Charge was framed under sections 302/34 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case.
P.W-1-Pooja Kumari has stated that her sister died due to acid burns. Her sister had disclosed that the person who had thrown acid upon her had covered his face. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W-2-Nayana Kumari is the younger sister of the deceased-Lalita Devi. She has stated that acid was thrown at her sister who was admitted to the hospital, where she died. Sunil Yadav is the husband of her elder sister-Kanchan Devi. She has stated that Lalita Devi had told her that acid was thrown upon her.
In cross-examination, she has stated that she does not know as to who had thrown acid upon her sister.
P.W-3-Shivlal Yadav is the father of deceased who has deposed that he does not know as to who had thrown acid upon Lalita Devi. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W-4-Ashok Kumar Ram @ Ritik did not support the case of the prosecution and he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W-5-Rita Devi @ Gita Devi is the mother of the deceased who has stated that she does not know as to who had thrown acid upon her daughter. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W-6-Prabil Yadav has stated that the deceased was his niece. He has also showed his ignorance regarding the person who had thrown acid upon Lalita Devi. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W-7-Bhuneshwar Yadav and P.W-8-Rajan Kumar Yadav have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have also been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W-9-Devnandan Murari was posted as a Sub Inspector of Police in Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh. On 17.06.2013, he had recorded the fardbeyan of Lalita Devi in Bed No. 10 of Female Ward of Sadar Hospit
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence and ensuring the declarant's fit state of mind in determining the reliability of a dying declaration.
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations as a sole basis for conviction, as established by various Supreme Court cases.
The credibility of a dying declaration is not affected by the percentage and degree of burns suffered by the deceased, and the only considerations are the voluntariness and fitness of the declarant's....
: Conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of dying declaration and there is no need of corroborative evidence provided dying declaration is voluntary.
Dying declarations must be corroborated by reliable evidence; significant contradictions in witness testimonies undermine their credibility, impacting the validity of the conviction.
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
