Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2268
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. RAJESWARAN & T. MATHIVANAN, JJ.
Pitchamml @ Pichamani @ Maniammal & Another
Versus
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 79 of 2013
Decided On : 03-07-2013
For the Appellants :S. Jayasingh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C. Ramesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and relevance of dying declarations, the special sanctity attached to dying declarations, and the absence of a hard and fast rule requiring corroboration.
Headnote:
Dying Declaration - Murder - Section 302 I.P.C. - AIR 1972 SC 1557, 1559, 1995 CrLJ 312 - The court found the appellants guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. based on the dying declarations of the deceased Velthangam, which were found to be cogent, reliable, and in tune with probabilities. The dying declarations were admissible not only against the person causing death but also against other participants. The court also discussed the relevance and admissibility of dying declarations, citing legal provisions and precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, husband and wife, were convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for setting the wife's elder sister on fire over a land dispute. The dying declarations of the deceased were the primary evidence, as the alleged eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution's case. The defense claimed the deceased set herself on fire due to family dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the burn wounds on the deceased to be homicidal and the dying declarations to be cogent, reliable, and consistent. The defense theory that the deceased set herself on fire was rejected. The court concluded that the appellants were guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. based on the dying declarations.
Issues: The crucial question was whether conviction could be based solely on the dying declaration. The court also considered the reliability of the dying declarations and the defense theory that the deceased set herself on fire.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility and relevance of dying declarations, citing legal provisions and precedents. It emphasized the special sanctity attached to dying declarations and the absence of a hard and fast rule requiring corroboration. The court also discussed the relevance of the percentage of burn injuries in determining the credibility of dying declarations.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and instead found the appellants guilty under Section 304 Part I I.P.C., sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
T. Mathivanan, J.
1. This memorandum of criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30.06.2011 and made in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.133 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, finding the appellants/accused guilty under Section 302 I.P.C., convicting thereunder and sentencing them to suffer the imprisonment of life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
2. "Insatiable greed killed sister and landed in gallows."
Yes....it is true! The present case has set an example for the above quote.
3. The appellants 1 and 2 are the wife and husband, whereas the deceased Velthangam is none other than the elder sister of the second appellant. The trouble started in respect of a stretch of poramboke land measuring 6. Cents, over which the appellants 1 and 2 were claiming interest.
4. That on 27.08.2009, at about 04.30 p.m., on the frontage of the hut of the deceased, as per the case of the prosecution, the second appellant being the younger brother of the deceased had set her on fire, while the first appellant had poured kerosene on her person.
5. The entire case of the prosecution hinges around the dying declarations said to have been given by the deceased Velthangam. Infact, the alleged eye-witnesses viz., P.Ws.2, 3 and 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution as they have turned hostile.
6. The case of the defence is that due to the family dispute, the deceased Velthangam had doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire.
7. However, the learned Trial Judge, on appraising the evidences both oral and documentary has found that the burn wounds found on the person of the deceased were homicidal burns and caused by the guru some act of the appellants 1 and 2 and he has also found that the dying declarations of the deceased Velthangam were cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspired implicit confidence and therefore, he had proceeded to found the appellants guilty under the simplicitor charge 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced them as afore-stated.
8. The crucial question involved in this case is:
Whether conviction can be recorded on the basis of the dying declaration alone?
9. It is a settled proposition of law that a Court is entitled to convict an accused on the sole basis of dying declaration if in the circumstances of the case it can be regarded truthful. This dictum has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gopal Singh vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1972 SC 1557, 1559.
10. Once dying declaration is found to be true and voluntary, it can be the sole basis of conviction and needs no corroboration. Such a statement is admissible not only against the person actually causing death but also against other persons participating in causing the declarant's death. This proposition has been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sant Gopal v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 CrLJ 312
11. In the instant case on hand, P.W.18 Balamurugan, Inspector of Police attached to Thoothukudi South Police Station had laid a final report on 27.12.2009, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi as against the appellants 1 and 2 under Section 302 I.P.C., in connection with the case in Crime No.928 of 2009, on the file of the Thoothukudi South Police Station.
12. After the completion of the preliminary enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi had committed the case records to the Court of Sessions viz., the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi and he, in turn, had taken the same on his file in S.C.No.133 of 2010.
13. After the appearance of the appellants and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the defence as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, the learned Principal Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Section 302 I.P.C., as against the appellants/accused.
14. When the ingredients of the charge
