http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 9

PETITIONER:

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

RAM SAGAR YADAV AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1985

BENCH:

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)

BENCH:

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)

SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:

1985 AIR 416 1985 SCR (2) 621

1985 SCC (1) 552 1985 SCALE (1)108

CITATOR INFO :

R 1992 SC1817 (17)

ACT:

Indian Penal Code. ss. 300 302 and 304-Murder and

culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Distinction

between.

Indian Evidence Act-Evidence-Appreciation of-Dying

declaration-If true, whether corroboration necessary-Death

caused and/or atrocities perpetrated while in police

custody-Burden of proof-Need for re-examination by

legislature.

Criminal Law-Petty details and minor contradictions in

evidence-Whether can tilt the scale of justice.

HEADNOTE:

Respondent 1 was the Station House Officer and

Respondents 2 to 4 were attached as constables to the Police

Station. The prosecution alleged that a complaint was filed

against the deceased for cattle trespass. The Respondent

pursuant to the said complaint sought to extort illegal

gratification from the deceased for hushing up the case.

Respondent 2 succeeded in obtaining Rs. 100 and made a

further demand of Rs. 200. The deceased refused to oblige

him and made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police,

who forwarded it to Respondent 1 for inquiry and report.

This incensed Respondent 1. The deceased was arrested and

brought to the Police Station by Respondents 3 and 4 at

about 10.00 A.M. Same day at about 6.00 P.M. the deceased

succumbed to injures which were caused to him by Respondents

while he was in their custody.

The Sessions Court tried the four Respondents,

convicted each of them under section 304, Part 2 of the

Penal Code while Respondent I was also convicted under

section 220 of the Penal Code and all were sentenced to

different terms of imprisonment.

The Respondents appealed to the High Court and a

Single Judge set aside their order of convictions and

sentences.

Allowing the Appeal of the State,

622

^

HELD: 1. It is impossible to sustain the judgment of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 9

the High Court as it has totally overlooked crucial evidence

led by the prosecution and taken an unrealistic view of

unequivocal facts. It has not even adverted to the reasons

given by the trial court for holding the Respondents guilty

of the offences of which they were convicted. [625B-C]

2. It is quite clear that upon the evidence led by the

prosecution only one conclusion is possible, which is, that

the Respondents inflicted injuries upon Brijlal while he was

in their custody, thereby causing his death. [635F]

3. It is well-settled that, as a matter of law, a dying

declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. There

is not even a rule of prudence which has harden d into a

rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon

unless it is corroborated. The primary effort Or the Court

has to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true.

If it is, no question of corroboration arises. It is only

If the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are

not clear or convincing that the Court may, for its

assurance, look for corroboration to the dying declaration.

[628D-E]

The instant case. is a typical illustration of that

class of cases in which the Court should not hesitate to act

on the basis of an uncorroborated dying declaration The

circumstances leave no doubt that the dying declaration made

by the deceased to the Judicial Magistrate to the effect

that he was beaten by Darogah and the constables at the

Police Station is true in every respect and it is safe to

accept the same. [628F; G; 629A-B]

Khushal